<?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>2015 (4) TMI 941 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259060</link>
    <description>Under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008, rejection of an application for notification was held unsustainable where the competent municipal authority had issued phased part-occupation certificates and later confirmed completion and occupation of the building. The High Court ruled that the approval authority could not disregard those certificates or reappraise municipal permissions, absent fraud or suspect circumstances. It further held that alleged defects concerning allocable area, common facility area, infrastructure facility area, and scheme compliance were assessed on an unduly rigid reading of the scheme, which distinguishes those areas and requires examination of the project actually developed. The rejection was quashed and reconsideration directed, while direct issuance of the notification was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 941 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259060</link>
      <description>Under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008, rejection of an application for notification was held unsustainable where the competent municipal authority had issued phased part-occupation certificates and later confirmed completion and occupation of the building. The High Court ruled that the approval authority could not disregard those certificates or reappraise municipal permissions, absent fraud or suspect circumstances. It further held that alleged defects concerning allocable area, common facility area, infrastructure facility area, and scheme compliance were assessed on an unduly rigid reading of the scheme, which distinguishes those areas and requires examination of the project actually developed. The rejection was quashed and reconsideration directed, while direct issuance of the notification was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>