The assessee claimed exemption under s. 54F in respect of investment in a residential property, wherein separate floors of a singular house were purchased by her family members. The AO reopened the assessment alleging that the assessee owned more than one residential unit and had failed to disclose material facts. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment. On appeal, the High Court held that ownership of different floors of the same building does not convert a singular residential house into multiple residential houses. Merely because different floors are owned or partly owned by different persons would not detract from the fact that the property constituted one residential house for the purpose of s. 54F. Reliance was placed on CIT v. Gita Duggal (2013) 257 CTR 208  (Delhi)(HC)   and Mrs. Kamla Ajmera v. Pr. CIT (2025) 342 CTR 626  (Delhi) (HC)).  The Court further held that the assessee had truly and fully disclosed all material facts relating to the sale of the original asset and investment in the residential property. The configuration of ownership as reflected in Municipal Corporation records did not establish any failure of disclosure. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arose and the order of the Tribunal quashing the reassessment was affirmed. (AY. 2011-12).