The assessee was a Non-Resident Indian working in the USA. During the relevant year, he sold a residential flat in India and purchased another residential flat in the USA out of capital gain on the sale of property within the time limit prescribed by section 54F and claimed exemption under section 54F. Under a mistaken presumption, he deposited an amount higher than the amount of LTCG into a Capital Gain Account Scheme (CGAS). He therefore brought to the notice of the revenue the position as mentioned above and sought issuance of a certificate to the bank for release of sum of certain amount which was deposited in the CGAS. Revenue, rejected his claim on the ground that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 54F as the investment was made in a house property situated outside India. He relied upon an amendment in section 54F(1) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 which inserted the words ‘in India’ in the said provision. The Assessee filed writ against the rejection order passed under section 264 of the Act. Allowing the petition the Court held that the  Amendment in section 54F by Finance (no.2) Act of 2014 imposing condition that assessee should invest sale proceeds arising out of a sale of capital asset in a residential property situated ‘in India’ within stipulated period is prospective in nature and cannot be applied to transactions prior to 1-4-2015.On the facts the   assessee, a non-resident India working in USA, sold a residential flat in India and invested sale proceeds from same, in a residential house in USA within specified period, same satisfied conditions stipulated in section 54F as it stood and was applicable to relevant assessment year and thus, assessee was to be allowed exemption under section 54F. Rejection order passed by the Commissioner is sat aside. It is well settled position of law that an amendment can be considered to be declaratory and clarificatory only if the statute itself expressly and unequivocally states that it is declaratory and clarificatory provision. If there is no such clear statement, the amendment is not merely a clarification, but a substantive amendment, which shall apply prospectively (AY. 2014-15)