<?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>2014 (8) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250092</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled that profit from the sale of unutilized Floor Space Index (FSI) is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as it should be distinct from profit derived from development and construction of housing units. The court emphasized the importance of FSI in development activities and noted that substantial underutilization without valid reasons cannot justify the deduction claim. The court upheld the Assessing Officer&#039;s decision to disallow the deduction, ruling in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. The issue regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not considered due to a previous favorable decision for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2014 09:16:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250092</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled that profit from the sale of unutilized Floor Space Index (FSI) is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as it should be distinct from profit derived from development and construction of housing units. The court emphasized the importance of FSI in development activities and noted that substantial underutilization without valid reasons cannot justify the deduction claim. The court upheld the Assessing Officer&#039;s decision to disallow the deduction, ruling in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. The issue regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not considered due to a previous favorable decision for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>