https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796311 Investment in two adjacent residential properties acquired through separate registered deeds from distinct persons does not qualify as investment in one residential house for Section 54F exemption merely because the properties are later amalgamated. Their separate legal identity at acquisition remained decisive, and the subsequent municipal amalgamation confirmed that they had initially been independent houses. Authorities addressing multiple units or floors forming one house were not applicable. Under the post-2015 requirement that the investment be in one residential house, exemption was unavailable for the second property, and the related disallowance was restored. en-us Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Aug 2026 08:39:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796311 Investment in two adjacent residential properties acquired through separate registered deeds from distinct persons does not qualify as investment in one residential house for Section 54F exemption merely because the properties are later amalgamated. Their separate legal identity at acquisition remained decisive, and the subsequent municipal amalgamation confirmed that they had initially been independent houses. Authorities addressing multiple units or floors forming one house were not applicable. Under the post-2015 requirement that the investment be in one residential house, exemption was unavailable for the second property, and the related disallowance was restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796311