<?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 (4) TMI 838 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209426</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing deductions under section 80-IB(10) proportionately for housing units with built-up areas less than 1500 sq. ft. The denial of these claims for the assessment years was overturned, as the project had received necessary approvals from local authorities and met the requirements of the Income-tax Act. The presence of some units exceeding 1500 sq. ft. did not disqualify the entire project, and proportional deductions were deemed permissible based on previous decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 838 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209426</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing deductions under section 80-IB(10) proportionately for housing units with built-up areas less than 1500 sq. ft. The denial of these claims for the assessment years was overturned, as the project had received necessary approvals from local authorities and met the requirements of the Income-tax Act. The presence of some units exceeding 1500 sq. ft. did not disqualify the entire project, and proportional deductions were deemed permissible based on previous decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>