https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784322 Exemption under s.54 was denied on the premise that a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and demolition negated "residential house" status and that failure to deposit under s.54(2) and non-offering of house property income barred relief. The HC held the "transfer" occurred on execution of sale deeds in March 1999, not on the 1994 JDA, and the property need only be assessable under the head "house property" (actual offering is unnecessary); further, s.54(2) deposit is not mandatory where reinvestment in a residential house is made within s.54(1) timelines. Relief under s.54 was allowed. The alternate claim under s.54F was rejected as it was not properly raised with requisite foundational facts; that rejection was sustained. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:51:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784322 Exemption under s.54 was denied on the premise that a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and demolition negated "residential house" status and that failure to deposit under s.54(2) and non-offering of house property income barred relief. The HC held the "transfer" occurred on execution of sale deeds in March 1999, not on the 1994 JDA, and the property need only be assessable under the head "house property" (actual offering is unnecessary); further, s.54(2) deposit is not mandatory where reinvestment in a residential house is made within s.54(1) timelines. Relief under s.54 was allowed. The alternate claim under s.54F was rejected as it was not properly raised with requisite foundational facts; that rejection was sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784322