https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783430 ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under s.54F. It held that, on the date of transfer of the original capital asset (Artwork/Painting), the assessee was not the owner of more than one "residential house" within the meaning of the proviso to s.54F, as Villa Nos. 13 and 14 were still under construction and not available for occupation. Further, these villas were later sold and their income was consistently offered and assessed under the head "business and profession," reinforcing their character as business assets. Consequently, the assessee's s.54F claim on investment in a new residential property was held valid. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Dec 2025 08:19:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783430 ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under s.54F. It held that, on the date of transfer of the original capital asset (Artwork/Painting), the assessee was not the owner of more than one "residential house" within the meaning of the proviso to s.54F, as Villa Nos. 13 and 14 were still under construction and not available for occupation. Further, these villas were later sold and their income was consistently offered and assessed under the head "business and profession," reinforcing their character as business assets. Consequently, the assessee's s.54F claim on investment in a new residential property was held valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783430