S. Harnam Singh Suri vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 20 May, 1983
9. Section 54 of the Act came up for consideration before a learned single judge of the Delhi High Court in S. Harnam Singh Suri v. CBDT . There the question was raised by the assessee in a writ petition and not by way of reference under section 256 of the Act. The learned single judge having referred to the earlier view taken by the Madras High Court expressed the view that past continuous tense used in section 54 only meant that whenever used in the preceding two years, the house should have been used by the assessee as a residence for himself or his parent and that the word "in" read with "mainly" could never mean "continuously". So, the house need not have been continuously used for a period of two years for the purpose of residence by the assessee or his parent prior to its sale so as to claim exemption under section 54 of the Act.