https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203211 ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s order and dismissed all three Revenue appeals. It held the assessee was a de facto landowner and property developer, not a mere works contractor, and therefore eligible for deduction under s. 80-IB(10) despite not being the recorded owner. Corpus fund amounts collected from buyers for the future association were treated as a liability and not taxable income. The deemed dividend addition under s. 2(22)(e) was deleted, as the payments were part of business transactions where substantial funds of the assessee were lying with the company. Car parking area, being a common non-living space, was excluded from built-up area for s. 80-IB(10) computation. en-us Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 12:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203211 ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s order and dismissed all three Revenue appeals. It held the assessee was a de facto landowner and property developer, not a mere works contractor, and therefore eligible for deduction under s. 80-IB(10) despite not being the recorded owner. Corpus fund amounts collected from buyers for the future association were treated as a liability and not taxable income. The deemed dividend addition under s. 2(22)(e) was deleted, as the payments were part of business transactions where substantial funds of the assessee were lying with the company. Car parking area, being a common non-living space, was excluded from built-up area for s. 80-IB(10) computation. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203211