https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762541 Section 54F exemption was denied because the new property purchased jointly was not shown to be a residential house. The registered sale deed described the property only as "makaan", while the record also indicated a brick-kiln and sheds on the land and the revenue records treated it as agricultural land. On that evidentiary basis, the finding that the investment was not in a residential house was a factual conclusion drawn from the material on record and was not perverse. The assessee's challenge therefore failed, and the exemption claim under Section 54F was rejected. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Dec 2024 08:44:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762541 Section 54F exemption was denied because the new property purchased jointly was not shown to be a residential house. The registered sale deed described the property only as "makaan", while the record also indicated a brick-kiln and sheds on the land and the revenue records treated it as agricultural land. On that evidentiary basis, the finding that the investment was not in a residential house was a factual conclusion drawn from the material on record and was not perverse. The assessee's challenge therefore failed, and the exemption claim under Section 54F was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762541