https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58595 The Tribunal held that the transferred asset, 'Madhu Park,' was a capital asset and not stock-in-trade, rejecting the appellants' claim of conversion. It concluded that the property was always intended to be a capital asset, dismissing the conversion declaration as a self-serving document for tax avoidance. Regarding relief under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal ruled that only post-transfer investments in the new house, 'Raheja House,' qualify for exemption, contrary to the appellants' argument for full exemption. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the property's capital asset status and limiting exemption to post-transfer investments for Section 54 relief. en-us Mon, 15 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:41:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58595 The Tribunal held that the transferred asset, 'Madhu Park,' was a capital asset and not stock-in-trade, rejecting the appellants' claim of conversion. It concluded that the property was always intended to be a capital asset, dismissing the conversion declaration as a self-serving document for tax avoidance. Regarding relief under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal ruled that only post-transfer investments in the new house, 'Raheja House,' qualify for exemption, contrary to the appellants' argument for full exemption. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the property's capital asset status and limiting exemption to post-transfer investments for Section 54 relief. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58595