<?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>2003 (10) TMI 251 - ITAT BANGALORE-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57836</link>
    <description>ITAT Bangalore held that Section 54 permits deduction for capital gains invested in more than one residential house, unlike Section 54F which restricts to one property. The tribunal ruled that an assessee can acquire multiple residential units simultaneously from proceeds of selling one residential house and still claim exemption under Section 54. The decision emphasized that statutory language using &quot;a residential house&quot; does not restrict to only one unit, and under General Clauses Act, singular includes plural. Where ambiguity exists in tax provisions, interpretation favoring the assessee should be adopted. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 10:54:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96294" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 251 - ITAT BANGALORE-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57836</link>
      <description>ITAT Bangalore held that Section 54 permits deduction for capital gains invested in more than one residential house, unlike Section 54F which restricts to one property. The tribunal ruled that an assessee can acquire multiple residential units simultaneously from proceeds of selling one residential house and still claim exemption under Section 54. The decision emphasized that statutory language using &quot;a residential house&quot; does not restrict to only one unit, and under General Clauses Act, singular includes plural. Where ambiguity exists in tax provisions, interpretation favoring the assessee should be adopted. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>