assessee has not clarified if it is a member of the Rajasthan State Co-operative Land Development Bank and, if so, since when. Secondly, it has not shown that its principal object is to provide long-term credit for agricultural and rural development activities, which constitutes the defining attribute of such a bank, with its object clause nowhere indicating so. Thirdly, its area of operation admittedly extends beyond one taluk. The reliance placed on the decision in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. Ananda Basappa (supra), based on section 54(1), Invoking the provision as enshrined in section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is clearly misconceived, and rightly rejected by the Revenue. It does not take much strain, and a bare reading of said section would convince one that the investment that qualifies for exemption under section 54(1) is that in a residential house. i.e. specifies the nature of investment exempting the Income. Clearly, if the investment is in more than one residential house, every part of the investment would satisfy the condition of being in a residential house, and where within the defined time period as provided under the section would qualify for exemption. The provision under reference in the instance case, i.e. Explanation (b) to section 80P(4), on the other hand, is a defining provision employing the word "means". The same has to be strictly construed, as is well settled, besides having been explained lately by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation vs. Indrapuri Studio Pvt Ltd (in Civil Appeal No. 3865 of 2006 dated 19-10-2010). wherein it held that the
