https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35882 The High Court clarified that the term "mainly" in section 54 of the Income-tax Act requires predominant usage of a property for residence to qualify for exemption under capital gains tax. The Court held that in a case where part of the property was let out, it could not be considered mainly used for residence, thus denying the exemption. The Court emphasized that the property must be primarily used as a residence to qualify for the exemption and ruled against the assessee on this basis. The Court did not address the question of exempting 50% of the capital gains after ruling on the main issue. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:42:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35882 The High Court clarified that the term "mainly" in section 54 of the Income-tax Act requires predominant usage of a property for residence to qualify for exemption under capital gains tax. The Court held that in a case where part of the property was let out, it could not be considered mainly used for residence, thus denying the exemption. The Court emphasized that the property must be primarily used as a residence to qualify for the exemption and ruled against the assessee on this basis. The Court did not address the question of exempting 50% of the capital gains after ruling on the main issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35882