https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417136 Section 54 relief was treated as available where the capital gain was invested in a qualifying residential house, and the house standing in the wife's name did not by itself defeat exemption; the Tribunal's remand on repayment of housing loan and incidental expenditure was upheld because the record was insufficient for verification. Under Section 54F, the Court held that the ownership test turns on legal ownership on the date of transfer, so a house validly transferred away before that date could not be counted, and a property standing solely in the spouse's name was not the assessee's own house. The denial of Section 54F exemption was therefore rejected, subject to satisfaction of the remaining conditions. en-us Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417136 Section 54 relief was treated as available where the capital gain was invested in a qualifying residential house, and the house standing in the wife's name did not by itself defeat exemption; the Tribunal's remand on repayment of housing loan and incidental expenditure was upheld because the record was insufficient for verification. Under Section 54F, the Court held that the ownership test turns on legal ownership on the date of transfer, so a house validly transferred away before that date could not be counted, and a property standing solely in the spouse's name was not the assessee's own house. The denial of Section 54F exemption was therefore rejected, subject to satisfaction of the remaining conditions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417136