<?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>2011 (5) TMI 979 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180996</link>
    <description>Deduction under Section 80IB(10) was considered available to an undertaking developing and building a housing project even where the assessee was not the landowner and the approval stood in a cooperative society&#039;s name, because land ownership is not a separate statutory . The relevant facts were that the assessee bore the land cost, exercised dominant control, developed the project at its own risk, and was not acting merely as a contractor. The project also satisfied the statutory conditions on plot size, built-up area, and completion before the stipulated date; the later building use permission was treated as procedural and not fatal to the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:04:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 979 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180996</link>
      <description>Deduction under Section 80IB(10) was considered available to an undertaking developing and building a housing project even where the assessee was not the landowner and the approval stood in a cooperative society&#039;s name, because land ownership is not a separate statutory . The relevant facts were that the assessee bore the land cost, exercised dominant control, developed the project at its own risk, and was not acting merely as a contractor. The project also satisfied the statutory conditions on plot size, built-up area, and completion before the stipulated date; the later building use permission was treated as procedural and not fatal to the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>