<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (2) TMI 791 - ITAT, Pune</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207620</link>
    <description>For deduction under section 80-IB(10)(b), the relevant plot area is the area actually recognised in the sanctioned housing project, not a larger unapproved demarcated extent. Project documents, the sanctioned layout and municipal calculations showed 4,600 sq. mtrs. as the operative plot area, and the larger demarcated area was not treated by the sanctioning authority as part of the project. Mandatory amenity space, open space and internal roads required by the local authority formed part of the sanctioned project area and could not be excluded for the one-acre test. The deduction was therefore available on the basis of the sanctioned 4,600 sq. mtrs., while reliance on the larger demarcated area was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 791 - ITAT, Pune</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207620</link>
      <description>For deduction under section 80-IB(10)(b), the relevant plot area is the area actually recognised in the sanctioned housing project, not a larger unapproved demarcated extent. Project documents, the sanctioned layout and municipal calculations showed 4,600 sq. mtrs. as the operative plot area, and the larger demarcated area was not treated by the sanctioning authority as part of the project. Mandatory amenity space, open space and internal roads required by the local authority formed part of the sanctioned project area and could not be excluded for the one-acre test. The deduction was therefore available on the basis of the sanctioned 4,600 sq. mtrs., while reliance on the larger demarcated area was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>