https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99164 ITAT held that for deduction under section 54F, the decisive question was whether the disputed property could legally be treated as a residential house on the relevant date. On the basis of the registered purchase deed, later sale deed and the purchaser's notarised affidavit, the property was found to be open land fit for inhabitation, not a residential premises. Its appearance in the balance sheet at a stated value did not prove residential character. As the assessee was therefore not shown to own more than one residential house, the statutory condition for denial of deduction was not met and the deduction was rightly allowed. en-us Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:51:42 +0530 Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:51:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99164 ITAT held that for deduction under section 54F, the decisive question was whether the disputed property could legally be treated as a residential house on the relevant date. On the basis of the registered purchase deed, later sale deed and the purchaser's notarised affidavit, the property was found to be open land fit for inhabitation, not a residential premises. Its appearance in the balance sheet at a stated value did not prove residential character. As the assessee was therefore not shown to own more than one residential house, the statutory condition for denial of deduction was not met and the deduction was rightly allowed. Highlights Income Tax Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:51:42 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99164