https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784228 The dominant issue was whether the assessee's redeveloped residential flat was a short-term or long-term capital asset for purposes of exemption under s. 54, i.e., the correct date of acquisition for computing the holding period. The Tribunal held that the assessee's rights crystallized on the allotment of the redeveloped flat and related agreement, and the redevelopment was a continuation of ownership from the original flat, not a fresh purchase; payment of later instalments or construction completion/possession could not shift the acquisition date, consistent with binding jurisdictional HC precedent. As the holding period exceeded 36 months before sale, the gains were assessed as long-term capital gains, and the addition as short-term capital gain was deleted; the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 29 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784228 The dominant issue was whether the assessee's redeveloped residential flat was a short-term or long-term capital asset for purposes of exemption under s. 54, i.e., the correct date of acquisition for computing the holding period. The Tribunal held that the assessee's rights crystallized on the allotment of the redeveloped flat and related agreement, and the redevelopment was a continuation of ownership from the original flat, not a fresh purchase; payment of later instalments or construction completion/possession could not shift the acquisition date, consistent with binding jurisdictional HC precedent. As the holding period exceeded 36 months before sale, the gains were assessed as long-term capital gains, and the addition as short-term capital gain was deleted; the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784228