https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26208 Exemption under section 54 was held to depend on proof that the residential house satisfied the statutory residence requirement. Because the assessee failed to show an unbroken or continuous two-year period of residence, the capital gain remained assessable under section 45 and could not be excluded on the basis of section 54. The Court also held that section 54 relief cannot be claimed without establishing continuous residence for two years, and a contrary view of another High Court was not followed. The questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:01:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26208 Exemption under section 54 was held to depend on proof that the residential house satisfied the statutory residence requirement. Because the assessee failed to show an unbroken or continuous two-year period of residence, the capital gain remained assessable under section 45 and could not be excluded on the basis of section 54. The Court also held that section 54 relief cannot be claimed without establishing continuous residence for two years, and a contrary view of another High Court was not followed. The questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26208