https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222013 The case involved a dispute over the disallowance of exemption of Long Term Capital Gains under Section 54F for one residential flat out of two adjacent flats used as a single residential unit. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that exemption under Section 54 and 54F is allowable for one residential house only, even if multiple units are merged into one house for residence, with common facilities such as a common passage and kitchen being crucial in determining eligibility for exemption. The court supported the conversion of adjacent flats into a single residential house and granted the exemption for the investment in both flats. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:02:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222013 The case involved a dispute over the disallowance of exemption of Long Term Capital Gains under Section 54F for one residential flat out of two adjacent flats used as a single residential unit. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that exemption under Section 54 and 54F is allowable for one residential house only, even if multiple units are merged into one house for residence, with common facilities such as a common passage and kitchen being crucial in determining eligibility for exemption. The court supported the conversion of adjacent flats into a single residential house and granted the exemption for the investment in both flats. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222013