Follow:
- Next story THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN. –in the case of the assessee being an individual, the long term capital gains arising on the transfer of a residential house will be exempt from income tax if the assessee has, within a period of one year before or after that date either purchased or within a period of three years after that date constructed a residential house. For this purpose, the long term capital asset means a capital asset, which is not a short term capital asset.” 16. From the above, it is clear that the intention of the Legislature was to either purchase before or after the date of sale and the word ‘purchased’ or ‘constructed’ used in the Notes on Clauses amply makes the intention clear. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the substantial question of law is required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 17. In the result, the above tax case appeal is allowed and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. No costs.
- Previous story Justices N. Kirubakaran and P. Velmurugan, who were seized of a habeas corpus petition filed by S. Padma to get her daughter S. Nalini and son-in-law Sriharan transferred from central prison in Vellore to the one at Puzhal.
Recent Posts
- Order setaside THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW. P.No. 25446 of 2021andW.M.P.No.26886 of 2021Dhanraj Baid Jain College,(Institution of Tamil Nadu Educational & Medical Trust),
- THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.27875 of 2024& W.M.P.No.30397 of 2024/Upon production of proof with regard to the payment as stated above, the concerned Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law, by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, without pressing for limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
- this year, Srinivasan filed a civil suit against the Madras Music Academy,
- vacation bench of Justice PB Balaji and Justice G Arul Murugan heard the PIL moved by T Vennila, from Chennai. The petitioner contended that in the past four years unskilled field workers have lost their lives in Tangedco solely because they were made to perform tasks that they were neither recruited for nor trained to do the tasks. Apart from these 70 fatalities, there have been recurrent life-altering accidents, wherein over a 100 victims have been physically disabled, she said.
- The Madras High Court presided over by Justice Lakshminarayanan ruled in favour of Sindhuja setting aside the earlier order of the Family Court. The High Court directed the family welfare court to determine appropriate compensation for Sindhuja, emphasising that under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, the victim’s protection must come first.
More
Recent Posts
- Order setaside THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW. P.No. 25446 of 2021andW.M.P.No.26886 of 2021Dhanraj Baid Jain College,(Institution of Tamil Nadu Educational & Medical Trust),
- THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.27875 of 2024& W.M.P.No.30397 of 2024/Upon production of proof with regard to the payment as stated above, the concerned Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law, by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, without pressing for limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
- this year, Srinivasan filed a civil suit against the Madras Music Academy,
- vacation bench of Justice PB Balaji and Justice G Arul Murugan heard the PIL moved by T Vennila, from Chennai. The petitioner contended that in the past four years unskilled field workers have lost their lives in Tangedco solely because they were made to perform tasks that they were neither recruited for nor trained to do the tasks. Apart from these 70 fatalities, there have been recurrent life-altering accidents, wherein over a 100 victims have been physically disabled, she said.
- The Madras High Court presided over by Justice Lakshminarayanan ruled in favour of Sindhuja setting aside the earlier order of the Family Court. The High Court directed the family welfare court to determine appropriate compensation for Sindhuja, emphasising that under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, the victim’s protection must come first.