https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221381 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision in favor of the assessee regarding the withdrawal of deduction under Section 80-IB(10), emphasizing that the Completion Certificate from the Corporation of Chennai was valid. The disallowance under Section 14A was reduced significantly by the CIT(A) due to the retrospective inapplicability of Rule 8D. The Tribunal agreed, citing lack of nexus between borrowed funds and investments. The assessee was deemed eligible as a developer under Section 80-IB(10), with the Tribunal affirming the CIT(A)'s ruling that the activities extended beyond mere construction, aligning with the decision in C. Subba Reddy (HUF). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed for both assessment years. en-us Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 May 2013 17:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221381 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision in favor of the assessee regarding the withdrawal of deduction under Section 80-IB(10), emphasizing that the Completion Certificate from the Corporation of Chennai was valid. The disallowance under Section 14A was reduced significantly by the CIT(A) due to the retrospective inapplicability of Rule 8D. The Tribunal agreed, citing lack of nexus between borrowed funds and investments. The assessee was deemed eligible as a developer under Section 80-IB(10), with the Tribunal affirming the CIT(A)'s ruling that the activities extended beyond mere construction, aligning with the decision in C. Subba Reddy (HUF). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed for both assessment years. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221381