Case Law Details
Provision contained u/s 54F being a beneficial provision has to be construed liberally.
In various judicial precedents as also in the decision cited before us by the learned AR, it has been held that the condition precedent for claiming benefit u/s 54F is the capital gain realized from the sale of capital asset should have been parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house.
If the assessee has invested the money in construction of residential house merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not in a fit condition to be occupied within the period stipulated that would not dis entitle the assessee from claiming the benefit u/s 54F of the Act.
Once the assessee demonstrates that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house even though the transactions are not complete in all respects and as required under the law that would not dis entitle the assessee from availing benefit u/s 54F of the Act.
Even investment made in purchasing a plot of land for the purpose of construction of a residential house has been held to be an investment satisfying the conditions of section 54F of the Act. Though there cannot be any dispute with regard to the above said proposition of law, the assessee is required to prove the actual date of investment and the amount invested towards purchase/construction of the residential house with supporting evidence.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
