Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the ground and first floors of the same building constituted one residential house eligible for exemption; and whether construction cost incurred on that residential house qualified for exemption.
Issue (i): Whether the ground and first floors of the same building constituted one residential house eligible for exemption.
Analysis: The expression "one residential house" encompasses different floors of the same building. The physical arrangement of a residential building into independently usable units or floors does not, by itself, make them separate residential houses where they form part of the same residential property.
Conclusion: The ground and first floors constituted one residential house, and exemption was allowable for both floors in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether construction cost incurred on that residential house qualified for exemption.
Analysis: The cost incurred for construction of the residential house formed part of the eligible investment in the residential property.
Conclusion: The construction cost was allowable for exemption in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to full capital-gains exemption for the investment in both floors and for the construction expenditure.
Ratio Decidendi: Separate floors forming part of the same residential building may constitute one residential house, and eligible construction expenditure on that house forms part of the qualifying investment for capital-gains exemption.