https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208909 ITAT held in favour of the assessee in part, ruling that prior to the amendment effective 1-4-2005 balcony area did not form part of "built-up area" for s.80-IB(10). The AO's inclusion of balcony/wall thickness to push units beyond 1,000 sq ft was rejected; verification showed the built-up areas of the inspected flats matched the approved plan and none exceeded 1,000 sq ft in the Neptune project. A post-assessment DVO report similarly showed no unit in the Jupiter project exceeded 1,000 sq ft. Consequently the assessee's claim for deduction under s.80-IB(10) was allowed in part. en-us Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Nov 2025 14:35:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208909 ITAT held in favour of the assessee in part, ruling that prior to the amendment effective 1-4-2005 balcony area did not form part of "built-up area" for s.80-IB(10). The AO's inclusion of balcony/wall thickness to push units beyond 1,000 sq ft was rejected; verification showed the built-up areas of the inspected flats matched the approved plan and none exceeded 1,000 sq ft in the Neptune project. A post-assessment DVO report similarly showed no unit in the Jupiter project exceeded 1,000 sq ft. Consequently the assessee's claim for deduction under s.80-IB(10) was allowed in part. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208909