The High Court held as under:
1) Section 54F(1) if read carefully states that the assessee, being an individual or Hindu Undivided Family, who had earned capital gains from transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house, could claim benefit under the said section provided any one of the following three conditions were satisfied:
(i) The assessee had, within a period of one year before the sale, purchased a residential house;
(ii) Within two years after the date of transfer of the original capital asset purchased a residential house, and
(iii) Within a period of three years after the date of sale of the original asset, constructed a residential house.
2) For the satisfaction of the third condition, it was not stipulated or indicated in the Section that the construction must begin after the date of sale of the original/old asset;
3) There was no condition or reason for ambiguity and confusion which required moderation or reading the words of the said sub-section in a different manner – CIT v. Bharti Mishra [2014] 41 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi)
1) Section 54F(1) if read carefully states that the assessee, being an individual or Hindu Undivided Family, who had earned capital gains from transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house, could claim benefit under the said section provided any one of the following three conditions were satisfied:
(i) The assessee had, within a period of one year before the sale, purchased a residential house;
(ii) Within two years after the date of transfer of the original capital asset purchased a residential house, and
(iii) Within a period of three years after the date of sale of the original asset, constructed a residential house.
2) For the satisfaction of the third condition, it was not stipulated or indicated in the Section that the construction must begin after the date of sale of the original/old asset;
3) There was no condition or reason for ambiguity and confusion which required moderation or reading the words of the said sub-section in a different manner – CIT v. Bharti Mishra [2014] 41 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi)
No comments:
Post a Comment