ITAT Allows Section 54 Exemption on Unregistered Property Purchase with Possession:

ITAT holds Section 54 relief valid despite unregistered agreement where possession and payment are proven.
Pending litigation on title does not invalidate Section 54 claim

ITAT Allows Section 54 Exemption on Unregistered Property Purchase with Possession
The assessee, Anju Madhan, along with her husband, owned a property in Greater Kailash, New Delhi, which was developed and sold during AY 2016–17 for Rs. 8.40 crore. She claimed exemption under Section 54 on long-term capital gains amounting to Rs. 6.68 crore by investing in another residential property.
The Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption on two grounds: first, the agreement to purchase the new property was not registered; and second, the seller (assessee’s son) allegedly lacked clear title due to pending litigation. However, before the CIT(A), the assessee demonstrated that substantial payment had been made, possession was taken, and the seller had obtained valid title through a conveyance deed dated 16.10.2012. The CIT(A) accepted these submissions and allowed the exemption.
Main Issue: Whether exemption under Section 54 can be allowed where the new residential property is acquired through an unregistered agreement and the vendor’s title is disputed.
Tribunal's Decision: The ITAT upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that for the purpose of Section 54, the term “purchase” must be interpreted pragmatically and not confined to execution of a registered conveyance deed. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made substantial payment and taken possession of the property, which fulfilled the requirement of “purchase” under Section 54. It further held that such transactions are protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, even if the agreement is unregistered. On the issue of title, the Tribunal agreed that the vendor had valid title through a prior registered conveyance deed, and mere pendency of litigation without any restraining order does not invalidate the transaction. The objection regarding Rule 46A was also rejected.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157My Recent Articles
- ITAT Restricts Addition to Commission on Accommodation Cash Deposit TransactionsPremium
- ITAT Grants Relief on BSNL VRS Compensation and Leave Encashment ExemptionPremium
- ITAT Restores Charitable Trust's 12AB Registration Application After CIT(E) Rejects It for Non-Filing of DocumentsPremium
- Bombay High Court Quashes Time-Barred Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16Premium
- ITAT Deletes Demonetisation Addition Accepting Deceased Father’s Lifetime Cash SavingsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








