https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283778 The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to grant exemption under section 54B for the Asst. Year 2009-10. The investment made in the name of the wife was deemed eligible for exemption, while the investment in the name of the Bhabhi was considered ineligible. Consequently, the taxable capital gain for the assessee was limited to &8377; 2,02,955, with the case concluding on 9th March 2016. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:48:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283778 The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to grant exemption under section 54B for the Asst. Year 2009-10. The investment made in the name of the wife was deemed eligible for exemption, while the investment in the name of the Bhabhi was considered ineligible. Consequently, the taxable capital gain for the assessee was limited to &8377; 2,02,955, with the case concluding on 9th March 2016. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283778