<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Section 54 deduction denied where a plinth lease did not amount to a residential house and construction was not shown within time.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99712</link>
    <description>Deduction under section 54 was denied because a long-term lease of a plinth or plot for a proposed villa did not amount to purchase of a residential house. The assessee also failed to prove that construction had commenced or that substantial investment in the residential house was made within the statutory period after transfer of the original asset. The Tribunal rejected the contention that later restraint concerning Aamby Valley explained the non-completion, since the section 54 time limit and the contractual timelines had already expired. On these facts, there was no substantive compliance with section 54(1), and the claim was disallowed; the issue of investment after the due date under section 139(1) became infructuous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 08:36:20 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 08:36:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 54 deduction denied where a plinth lease did not amount to a residential house and construction was not shown within time.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99712</link>
      <description>Deduction under section 54 was denied because a long-term lease of a plinth or plot for a proposed villa did not amount to purchase of a residential house. The assessee also failed to prove that construction had commenced or that substantial investment in the residential house was made within the statutory period after transfer of the original asset. The Tribunal rejected the contention that later restraint concerning Aamby Valley explained the non-completion, since the section 54 time limit and the contractual timelines had already expired. On these facts, there was no substantive compliance with section 54(1), and the claim was disallowed; the issue of investment after the due date under section 139(1) became infructuous.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 08:36:20 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>