https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761928 The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. Regarding section 54F deduction, the tribunal held that "a residential house" includes two floors of the same building purchased from the same seller, allowing capital gains exemption for both properties. The AO's interpretation limiting relief to only one floor was rejected. On business activity allegations, the tribunal found the AO lacked evidence to establish business operations, noting the assessee's affidavit denying business involvement. The AO incorrectly treated legitimate receipts including property sale proceeds, compensation from land acquisition, and loan repayments as business income without proper inquiry. The appeal was allowed entirely. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:47:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761928 The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. Regarding section 54F deduction, the tribunal held that "a residential house" includes two floors of the same building purchased from the same seller, allowing capital gains exemption for both properties. The AO's interpretation limiting relief to only one floor was rejected. On business activity allegations, the tribunal found the AO lacked evidence to establish business operations, noting the assessee's affidavit denying business involvement. The AO incorrectly treated legitimate receipts including property sale proceeds, compensation from land acquisition, and loan repayments as business income without proper inquiry. The appeal was allowed entirely. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761928