https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71277 A life interest or similar right to use, occupy and enjoy immovable property was treated as an unbundled interest in property falling within the definition of a capital asset. Its relinquishment was therefore a transfer chargeable to capital gains, and the cost of acquisition was to be determined under the statutory substitution method rather than treated as nil merely because the assessee had not purchased the right. The interest was held not to be a mere easement or tenancy in the ordinary sense, and the rule in B.C. Srinivasa Setty did not apply because the asset had a determinable value. Exemption under section 54F was denied where the assessee owned another residential house. en-us Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:39:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71277 A life interest or similar right to use, occupy and enjoy immovable property was treated as an unbundled interest in property falling within the definition of a capital asset. Its relinquishment was therefore a transfer chargeable to capital gains, and the cost of acquisition was to be determined under the statutory substitution method rather than treated as nil merely because the assessee had not purchased the right. The interest was held not to be a mere easement or tenancy in the ordinary sense, and the rule in B.C. Srinivasa Setty did not apply because the asset had a determinable value. Exemption under section 54F was denied where the assessee owned another residential house. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71277