https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759704 Deduction under section 54F depends on the assessee not owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of the original asset. On the facts, the Vishubaug property was treated as a second residential house because it contained a separately built and habitable bungalow with other residential structures, and the assessee failed to show that it was only agricultural or commercial land. The absence of reliable proof of agricultural or business use, and the fact that dairy activity alone does not establish agricultural income, supported that conclusion. Joint ownership was also rejected because the investment was treated as having been made by the assessee, so the section 54F claim on the Colaba property was not available. en-us Fri, 05 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Oct 2024 09:08:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759704 Deduction under section 54F depends on the assessee not owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of the original asset. On the facts, the Vishubaug property was treated as a second residential house because it contained a separately built and habitable bungalow with other residential structures, and the assessee failed to show that it was only agricultural or commercial land. The absence of reliable proof of agricultural or business use, and the fact that dairy activity alone does not establish agricultural income, supported that conclusion. Joint ownership was also rejected because the investment was treated as having been made by the assessee, so the section 54F claim on the Colaba property was not available. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759704