https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342334 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. It emphasized that the time limit for investment in the construction of the new asset should be considered as per section 139(4) rather than section 139(1). The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the assessee had invested the amounts within the extended time frame under section 139(4) for granting the benefit under section 54F. The judgment highlighted the need to interpret beneficial provisions like section 54F liberally to uphold the taxpayer's rights under the law. en-us Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 May 2017 09:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342334 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. It emphasized that the time limit for investment in the construction of the new asset should be considered as per section 139(4) rather than section 139(1). The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the assessee had invested the amounts within the extended time frame under section 139(4) for granting the benefit under section 54F. The judgment highlighted the need to interpret beneficial provisions like section 54F liberally to uphold the taxpayer's rights under the law. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342334