https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443328 The HC ruled in favor of the Petitioner, a Non-Resident Indian, allowing the benefits of Section 54(F) of the Income Tax Act for purchasing a residential property in the USA before the amendment requiring such investments to be in India. The Court deemed the amendment substantive and prospective, not applicable to transactions before April 1, 2015. Additionally, the Court directed the Respondent to accept the Petitioner's revised return under Section 139(5), rejecting the Respondent's contention that it was non-est due to a filing delay. The Court found the rejection of the revision petition unsustainable, allowing the Petitioner a refund. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2024 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443328 The HC ruled in favor of the Petitioner, a Non-Resident Indian, allowing the benefits of Section 54(F) of the Income Tax Act for purchasing a residential property in the USA before the amendment requiring such investments to be in India. The Court deemed the amendment substantive and prospective, not applicable to transactions before April 1, 2015. Additionally, the Court directed the Respondent to accept the Petitioner's revised return under Section 139(5), rejecting the Respondent's contention that it was non-est due to a filing delay. The Court found the rejection of the revision petition unsustainable, allowing the Petitioner a refund. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443328