https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69420 The Tribunal allowed the appeals challenging the denial of relief under s. 7(4) of the WT Act, 1957 by the CWT(A) for owning a residential house. It held that the term "exclusively used" only required the property to be reserved for the appellant without being let out, allowing freezing of the value for one residential house. Additionally, it clarified that HUFs were eligible for relief under s. 7(4) and directed a fresh examination regarding the addition of a sum to net wealth for a firm's interest and the disallowance of deficit in the Estate Account for agricultural estates. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:50:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69420 The Tribunal allowed the appeals challenging the denial of relief under s. 7(4) of the WT Act, 1957 by the CWT(A) for owning a residential house. It held that the term "exclusively used" only required the property to be reserved for the appellant without being let out, allowing freezing of the value for one residential house. Additionally, it clarified that HUFs were eligible for relief under s. 7(4) and directed a fresh examination regarding the addition of a sum to net wealth for a firm's interest and the disallowance of deficit in the Estate Account for agricultural estates. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69420