https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465765 The dominant issue was whether deduction under s.54 could be denied for failure to deposit capital gains in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme by the due date under s.139(1) despite subsequent investment in a new residential house. The Tribunal held that s.54(2) is an enabling/procedural provision meant to park funds until investment, and cannot be strictly construed to defeat the substantive exemption under s.54(1) where bona fide intention and actual investment within the stipulated period are proved; reliance was placed on CBDT Circulars and HC authority treating analogous language in s.54F. Consequently, since the assessee demonstrated purchase of a new residential house within time, the direction to allow s.54 deduction was upheld and the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 13:27:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465765 The dominant issue was whether deduction under s.54 could be denied for failure to deposit capital gains in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme by the due date under s.139(1) despite subsequent investment in a new residential house. The Tribunal held that s.54(2) is an enabling/procedural provision meant to park funds until investment, and cannot be strictly construed to defeat the substantive exemption under s.54(1) where bona fide intention and actual investment within the stipulated period are proved; reliance was placed on CBDT Circulars and HC authority treating analogous language in s.54F. Consequently, since the assessee demonstrated purchase of a new residential house within time, the direction to allow s.54 deduction was upheld and the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465765