https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345142 ITAT Chennai held that a claim linked to the escaped capital gain could be examined in reassessment under section 147, so the revised exemption claim was admissible. It further held that section 54F relief could not be denied merely because the new residential house stood in the names of the assessee's daughters or was acquired through a mortgage by conditional sale; the transaction amounted to a qualifying purchase. However, deduction under section 54EC was refused because the investment in specified bonds was made after the prescribed six-month period from transfer. The assessee obtained partial relief, succeeding on reassessment and section 54F but failing on section 54EC. en-us Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:50:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345142 ITAT Chennai held that a claim linked to the escaped capital gain could be examined in reassessment under section 147, so the revised exemption claim was admissible. It further held that section 54F relief could not be denied merely because the new residential house stood in the names of the assessee's daughters or was acquired through a mortgage by conditional sale; the transaction amounted to a qualifying purchase. However, deduction under section 54EC was refused because the investment in specified bonds was made after the prescribed six-month period from transfer. The assessee obtained partial relief, succeeding on reassessment and section 54F but failing on section 54EC. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345142