<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (11) TMI 1515 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782047</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi-AT allowed the assessee&#039;s claim for deduction u/s 54F(1) in respect of investment in a residential unit in &quot;The Camellias&quot; of DLF Ltd. The Tribunal held that mere joint ownership of more than one residential property at the time of transfer of the original asset does not bar eligibility under s.54F, as the statutory restriction is aimed at ownership of more than one residential house in a substantive sense. It found the assessee met the conditions for investment in the new residential property and that the AO and CIT(A) had wrongly denied the deduction. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were therefore set aside and the deduction u/s 54F(1) was directed to be allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=866623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1515 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782047</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi-AT allowed the assessee&#039;s claim for deduction u/s 54F(1) in respect of investment in a residential unit in &quot;The Camellias&quot; of DLF Ltd. The Tribunal held that mere joint ownership of more than one residential property at the time of transfer of the original asset does not bar eligibility under s.54F, as the statutory restriction is aimed at ownership of more than one residential house in a substantive sense. It found the assessee met the conditions for investment in the new residential property and that the AO and CIT(A) had wrongly denied the deduction. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were therefore set aside and the deduction u/s 54F(1) was directed to be allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>