Tax Consultation (US and India)
2970 Points
Joined September 2011
Extracts of (Balraj v. CIT [2002]) delhi
For the purpose of attracting the provisions of section 54, it is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of the property purchased. The word ‘purchase’ occurring in section 54(1) has to be given its common meaning, viz., buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Therefore, for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of the document is not imperative
source: https://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/IncomeTaxActs/2005ITAct/casesec54.htm
CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (Delhi HC)
Full exemption even if property is purchased in joint names
Your case is fully covered in this SC case, where it was held that investment in name of spouse shall be eligible for deduction 'cause assesse isconstructive owner.
CIT Vs. Podar Cements (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)
In case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan Vs. CIT, (1987)Andhra (HC)
Dept. major ground was that assesse got changed and for the purpose of availing exemption assesse should be the same
It was held that the object of granting exemption under Section 54 of the Act is that an assessee who sells a residential house for purchasing another house must be given exemption so far as capital gains are concerned.
The word “assessee” must be given wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also.
There is no warrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word “assessee” as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption.