https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173032 A building appropriated under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 and placed with a military officer under Government permission was treated as remaining in the occupation of the Central Government for exemption purposes under section 99(2)(f) of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The distinction drawn was between a sub-lease, which would divest Government occupation, and a mere licence to reside, where Government retains the right to resume possession and continues to occupy through the permitted occupant. On that basis, the statutory exemption was held to remain available and was not defeated on the facts stated. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2015 16:57:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173032 A building appropriated under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 and placed with a military officer under Government permission was treated as remaining in the occupation of the Central Government for exemption purposes under section 99(2)(f) of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The distinction drawn was between a sub-lease, which would divest Government occupation, and a mere licence to reside, where Government retains the right to resume possession and continues to occupy through the permitted occupant. On that basis, the statutory exemption was held to remain available and was not defeated on the facts stated. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173032