https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215063 Section 54F exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee was shown as a joint owner of a residential property with her husband. The Court noted that only a 50% share was attributable to the assessee and part of the property was used as a clinic, so the residential portion was not established as being exclusively owned by her in her individual capacity. On that basis, the proviso to Section 54F was held inapplicable. Investment in four flats also did not, by itself, defeat the exemption. The assessee was therefore entitled to Section 54F relief. en-us Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Aug 2026 17:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215063 Section 54F exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee was shown as a joint owner of a residential property with her husband. The Court noted that only a 50% share was attributable to the assessee and part of the property was used as a clinic, so the residential portion was not established as being exclusively owned by her in her individual capacity. On that basis, the proviso to Section 54F was held inapplicable. Investment in four flats also did not, by itself, defeat the exemption. The assessee was therefore entitled to Section 54F relief. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215063