https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760959 ITAT Mumbai held that assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 54F despite property transactions being in wife's name. The tribunal ruled that dependent spouse's income could be included in husband's return under section 64(1), making him the beneficial owner. Regarding investment in two flats allegedly violating section 54F, the tribunal found both flats were adjacent units constituting a single property, not contravening the provision. The amendment requiring single flat investment was effective from 01/04/2015, not applicable to A.Y. 2014-15. Following precedents in Simran Bagga and D. Ananda Basappa cases, the tribunal allowed the exemption claim and deleted the addition. Appeal allowed. en-us Mon, 07 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760959 ITAT Mumbai held that assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 54F despite property transactions being in wife's name. The tribunal ruled that dependent spouse's income could be included in husband's return under section 64(1), making him the beneficial owner. Regarding investment in two flats allegedly violating section 54F, the tribunal found both flats were adjacent units constituting a single property, not contravening the provision. The amendment requiring single flat investment was effective from 01/04/2015, not applicable to A.Y. 2014-15. Following precedents in Simran Bagga and D. Ananda Basappa cases, the tribunal allowed the exemption claim and deleted the addition. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760959