<?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>Capital gains exemption u/s54F for property sale: vacant/industrial land not residential, joint ownership and clubbing challenge rejected</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96060</link>
    <description>Assessee&#039;s entitlement to exemption under s.54F: (1) Whether assessee owned more than one residential house-AO&#039;s finding that a vacant/industrial land with leased factory constituted a residential house was factually erroneous; land at 13 BT Road was non-residential and excluded from proviso sub-clause (i), therefore no disqualification - exemption allowed on this point. (2) Whether jointly held family property precluded s.54F - joint co-ownership meant the proviso&#039;s exclusivity test was not satisfied and did not bar the claim - exemption allowed. (3) Whether use of sale proceeds/colourable device/clubbing u/s 64 applied - no requirement to directly deploy sale proceeds; gift/clubbing allegation rejected on facts and cultural motive; exemption upheld. - ITAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2026 18:09:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2026 18:09:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Capital gains exemption u/s54F for property sale: vacant/industrial land not residential, joint ownership and clubbing challenge rejected</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96060</link>
      <description>Assessee&#039;s entitlement to exemption under s.54F: (1) Whether assessee owned more than one residential house-AO&#039;s finding that a vacant/industrial land with leased factory constituted a residential house was factually erroneous; land at 13 BT Road was non-residential and excluded from proviso sub-clause (i), therefore no disqualification - exemption allowed on this point. (2) Whether jointly held family property precluded s.54F - joint co-ownership meant the proviso&#039;s exclusivity test was not satisfied and did not bar the claim - exemption allowed. (3) Whether use of sale proceeds/colourable device/clubbing u/s 64 applied - no requirement to directly deploy sale proceeds; gift/clubbing allegation rejected on facts and cultural motive; exemption upheld. - ITAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2026 18:09:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>