https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782725 ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order granting the assessee deduction under s.54F and allowing indexed cost of acquisition of shares. It was held that "own" in s.54F contemplates absolute and exclusive ownership of a residential house; joint or fractional ownership by family members does not constitute ownership for the purpose of denying exemption. As the assessee was only a co-owner of the Goa flat, the assessee could not be treated as its absolute owner, and exemption under s.54F was correctly allowed. On the issue of indexed cost of acquisition of shares, the Tribunal endorsed CIT(A)'s factual verification of ledger accounts and investment confirmations, finding no basis to disturb the relief granted. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 11:37:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782725 ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order granting the assessee deduction under s.54F and allowing indexed cost of acquisition of shares. It was held that "own" in s.54F contemplates absolute and exclusive ownership of a residential house; joint or fractional ownership by family members does not constitute ownership for the purpose of denying exemption. As the assessee was only a co-owner of the Goa flat, the assessee could not be treated as its absolute owner, and exemption under s.54F was correctly allowed. On the issue of indexed cost of acquisition of shares, the Tribunal endorsed CIT(A)'s factual verification of ledger accounts and investment confirmations, finding no basis to disturb the relief granted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782725