https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443692 The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, reversing the decision of the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in considering a commercial property as a residential property, leading to the incorrect disallowance of the deduction under section 54F. It was determined that the assessee actually owned only one residential property and a commercial property, not two residential properties as assumed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee met the conditions for the deduction under section 54F and granted the deduction claimed by the assessee. en-us Tue, 26 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Sep 2023 07:42:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443692 The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, reversing the decision of the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in considering a commercial property as a residential property, leading to the incorrect disallowance of the deduction under section 54F. It was determined that the assessee actually owned only one residential property and a commercial property, not two residential properties as assumed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee met the conditions for the deduction under section 54F and granted the deduction claimed by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443692