https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427523 Section 54F exemption was denied where the Vishubag property was held to be a residential house on the evidence available. Although the assessee claimed agricultural and dairy use, the record showed a separately built bungalow, manager's office, workers' residence, storehouse and cow shed, and no reliable supporting material such as property tax records or electricity details was produced to prove a non-residential character. The claimed agricultural or commercial income was also not reflected in the return. The property was therefore treated as a residential house, the assessee was considered to have more than one residential house on the transfer date, and the exemption claim failed. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 11 Sep 2022 18:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427523 Section 54F exemption was denied where the Vishubag property was held to be a residential house on the evidence available. Although the assessee claimed agricultural and dairy use, the record showed a separately built bungalow, manager's office, workers' residence, storehouse and cow shed, and no reliable supporting material such as property tax records or electricity details was produced to prove a non-residential character. The claimed agricultural or commercial income was also not reflected in the return. The property was therefore treated as a residential house, the assessee was considered to have more than one residential house on the transfer date, and the exemption claim failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427523