https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450255 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal against CIT's revision order under section 263. CIT erroneously held that section 54F deduction was wrongly allowed as land was purchased beyond the prescribed two-year period from asset transfer. ITAT clarified that section 54F provides three years for house property construction to claim capital gains exemption, not two years as interpreted by CIT. The tribunal found CIT's revisionary power was based on incorrect legal interpretation, causing no prejudice to revenue. The assessment order was deemed correct. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2024 07:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450255 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal against CIT's revision order under section 263. CIT erroneously held that section 54F deduction was wrongly allowed as land was purchased beyond the prescribed two-year period from asset transfer. ITAT clarified that section 54F provides three years for house property construction to claim capital gains exemption, not two years as interpreted by CIT. The tribunal found CIT's revisionary power was based on incorrect legal interpretation, causing no prejudice to revenue. The assessment order was deemed correct. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450255