Venkata Dilip Kumar (HUF) v. CIT (2019) 419 ITR 298/ (2020) 312 CTR 26/ 185 DTR 45/ 268 Taxman 111 (Mad.)(HC) .Editorial : Affirmed by division bench , CIT v. Venkata Dilip Kumar (2021)437 ITR 137 (Mad) (HC)

S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence- Additional cost of construction incurred within stipulated time though not deposited in capital gains account—Entitled to deduction. [S. 45, 54F, 264, Art.226]

Allowing the petition the Court held that the assessee had claimed that it had utilised the disputed sum towards the cost of the additional construction within the period of three years from the date of the transfer and therefore, if such contention were factually correct, the assessee had to be held to have satisfied the mandatory requirement under S.  54(1) to get the deduction. Matter remanded to verify whether the sum was utilised by the assessee within the time stipulated under S. 54(1) for the purpose of construction. If such utilisation was found to have been made within such time, the Department was bound to grant deduction.