The assessee declared long-term capital gains and claimed the deduction admissible under S.  54 in respect of two properties purchased in different locations. The AO restricted the claim for deduction to acquisition of one residential building and accordingly allowed deduction in respect of the higher value of investment in respect of such property. The CIT (A) and Tribunal affirmed the order of the AO . On appeal the Court held that  that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 54(1) . The courts had interpreted the expression “a residential house” and the interpretation that it included the plural were binding.   Court also held that to give a definite meaning to the expression “a residential house”, the provisions of section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were amended with effect from April 25, 2015 by substituting the word “a residential house” with the word “one residential house”. The amendment specifically applied only prospectively with effect from the AY. 2015-16. The subsequent amendment of section 54(1) fortifies the need felt by the Legislature to give a definite meaning to the expression “a residential house”, which was interpreted as plural by various courts taking into account the context in which the expression was used. It is well settled in law that an amending Act may be purely clarificatory in nature and intended to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act, which was already implicit. Relied on  CIT v. Ram Kishan Dass [2019] 413 ITR 337 (SC)  ( AY: 2003-04)