https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191311 The High Court allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act for both the land on which the residential house was built and the appurtenant land. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation that both the building and land must be long-term capital assets, ruling in favor of the appellant based on a liberal interpretation of the section. The appellant successfully argued that the land contiguous to a residential house should be considered appurtenant to the house, securing the capital gains relief under Section 54. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:37:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191311 The High Court allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act for both the land on which the residential house was built and the appurtenant land. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation that both the building and land must be long-term capital assets, ruling in favor of the appellant based on a liberal interpretation of the section. The appellant successfully argued that the land contiguous to a residential house should be considered appurtenant to the house, securing the capital gains relief under Section 54. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191311