LawLoveLegal

Introduction Reinvesting proceeds from the sale of a residential property into another home is a common tax-planning strategy in India. However, when such reinvestment is made in an under-construction property , delays in completion can severely jeopardise the Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) exemption available under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The law adopts a strict, time-bound approach, and courts have consistently emphasised compliance with statutory timelines. This article examines the statutory framework , constitutional principles , and judicial precedents governing LTCG exemptions in cases involving under-construction residential properties. Statutory Framework Governing Capital Gains Exemption Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 54 provides exemption from long-term capital gains arising from the sale of a residential house property , subject to reinvestment in another residential house. Key statutory conditions: The assessee must purchase: A residential house within ...

Developer Cannot Postpone Society Formation Due to Future Wings I. Case Background In a significant ruling strengthening the rights of flat purchasers, the Bombay High Court has held that the registration of a Co-operative Housing Society (CHS) for a completed wing cannot be deferred until the entire real estate project is completed . The Court set aside the orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar (DJR), Co-operative Societies , and the Minister for Co-operation , which had cancelled the registration of a society in Mulund West, Mumbai . II. Facts of the Case The dispute concerned the 360 Degree Business Park Premises Co-operative Society , formed for the Brite Building , a 10-storey commercial structure constructed in 2007 by Brite Tools Pvt Ltd . Key Facts: Full Occupancy Certificate (OC) issued in August 2013 44 units sold by the developer Building fully occupied and functional No society formed by the developer despite completion As a result, 31 ...

Case Title / Court / Bench / Date Case: Writ Petitions filed by Canara Bank Branch Office and Others Court: Allahabad High Court Bench: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal Decision Date: 16 December 2025 Statute Involved: Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 Background of the Case The issue before the Allahabad High Court was whether a landlord can file an eviction application before the Rent Authority under the UP Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 , when: No written tenancy agreement was executed, and The landlord failed to furnish tenancy particulars to the Rent Authority. Earlier orders had rejected such eviction applications as non-maintainable , holding that absence of a written tenancy agreement ousted jurisdiction. The petitioners (including Canara Bank) challenged these findings. Key Legal Issue Before the Court Whether the Rent Authority under the UP Tenancy Act, 2021 has jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications in cases where: tenancy...

Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India has delivered a strong message against unauthorised constructions, holding that courts must not legitimise illegal structures merely because municipal regulations allow compounding on payment of fees. The observations were made while dismissing a petition challenging the demolition of unauthorised constructions in Secunderabad, Telangana. The appeal arose from a judgment of the Telangana High Court which had ordered the removal of illegal constructions raised without permission from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasised that post-facto regularisation of illegal constructions defeats the rule of law and encourages rampant encroachment on public and private land. Supreme Court’s Observations: Rule of Law Cannot Be Compromised The apex court categorically held that demolition is the correct legal course where unauthorised constructions are raised, a...

Case Background: Pratibha Tower and Its Controversial History Pratibha Tower was originally a 36-storey luxury residential project in Breach Candy, Mumbai, launched in 1984. It later became the center of a major real estate fraud scandal when authorities found that the developer had overstated the plot area to gain unauthorized Floor Space Index (FSI) benefits. This resulted in illegal additional construction and regulatory intervention. Among the early apartment purchasers were well-known personalities, including Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosale , highlighting the project’s high-profile nature. Litigation Timeline and Demolition 1989 – BMC ordered demolition of the top eight floors . 2019 – The remaining structure was demolished after the cooperative society resolved to redevelop the land. 2022 – Society selected Crest Residency Pvt Ltd (JV: RA Enterprises + Crest Venture) as the new developer. June 2025 – Society member Devyani Gulabsi filed a suit challe...

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment settling a long-standing ambiguity in property law concerning minors’ rights over property sales executed by their guardians without prior court approval. The decision, pronounced by a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale , establishes that minors, upon attaining majority, are not required to move the court to cancel such transactions — repudiation through their actions or conduct is sufficient under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 . Case Background: The Dispute Over Two Plots in Karnataka The judgment arose from an appeal filed by KS Shivappa , who purchased two adjoining plots in Davanagere, Karnataka, from two brothers after they attained majority. These plots were originally purchased in 1971 by their father and natural guardian, Rudrappa , in the names of his minor sons. Soon after, Rudrappa sold both plots without obtaining the mandatory court permission required under Section 8(...

Landmark Ruling on Real Estate Disputes In a significant ruling aimed at protecting homebuyers, the Supreme Court of India has held that real estate developers must compensate buyers at the same punitive rate of interest they themselves impose on buyers for payment delays. This decision seeks to establish parity and fairness in the highly contested builder-buyer relationship. The ruling came from a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih , who directed M/s Business Park Town Planners Ltd to refund the principal amount to the buyer with 18% interest per annum , instead of the 9% interest awarded earlier by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). Case Background: A 12-Year Struggle for Justice The dispute began in 2006 , when homebuyer Rajnesh Sharma booked a plot in the builder’s Park Land project in Haryana for ₹36.03 lakh. By 2011, Sharma had already paid over ₹28 lakh, but possession of the property was not handed over. Instead, the builder offere...

Delhi HC Grants Bail to Retired Major Accused of Cheating Homebuyers The Delhi High Court has granted bail to retired Major Surendra Kumar Hooda , who was accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust in cases related to delayed real estate projects . The bail was granted in three cases registered in 2016 , primarily considering Hooda’s age (82 years) and deteriorating medical condition . The court's decision comes in the backdrop of India's Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act , which aims to protect homebuyers from fraud and ensure accountability in real estate projects . Why Was Major (Retd.) Surendra Kumar Hooda Arrested? 📌 Accusations: Hooda was accused of cheating investors by collecting large sums of money through real estate projects under A N Buildwell (ANB) , namely Spire Edge and Spire Woods , without completing them. 📌 Arrest & Legal Proceedings: Arrested on September 20, 2017 , while undergoing treatment for a brain stroke . December 20...