<?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>2016 (3) TMI 408 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325224</link>
    <description>For deduction under section 80IB(10), a housing-project assessee was treated as a developer, not a works contractor, because the development agreement gave it broad control over planning, funding, memberships and execution at its own risk. Lack of legal title to the land, and approval standing in the society&#039;s name, did not by itself defeat the claim where the assessee had possession and substantial development control. Project-linked income surrendered during search as on-money was also treated as business profit derived from the same eligible housing project and remained deductible, with consistency in earlier assessments supporting that treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:14:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 408 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325224</link>
      <description>For deduction under section 80IB(10), a housing-project assessee was treated as a developer, not a works contractor, because the development agreement gave it broad control over planning, funding, memberships and execution at its own risk. Lack of legal title to the land, and approval standing in the society&#039;s name, did not by itself defeat the claim where the assessee had possession and substantial development control. Project-linked income surrendered during search as on-money was also treated as business profit derived from the same eligible housing project and remained deductible, with consistency in earlier assessments supporting that treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>