https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190757 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54F as the demolition of the bungalow did not constitute a transfer, following the precedent established by the Bombay High Court in a similar case. The Tribunal criticized the CIT(A) for not adhering to the High Court's decision and for incorrectly determining the purchase of the bungalow as symbolic. en-us Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:17:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190757 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54F as the demolition of the bungalow did not constitute a transfer, following the precedent established by the Bombay High Court in a similar case. The Tribunal criticized the CIT(A) for not adhering to the High Court's decision and for incorrectly determining the purchase of the bungalow as symbolic. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190757