<?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 (4) TMI 588 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326474</link>
    <description>A real estate project arrangement was treated as a genuine joint venture and Association of Persons because the parties acted for a common commercial purpose, implemented profit and loss sharing, and used venture-level registrations and sale deeds. The supplementary agreement was accepted as a valid clarification of earlier ambiguity, and the form of the arrangement was not allowed to override its substance. On that basis, amounts withdrawn by a member from the venture were not taxable separately in that member&#039;s hands as business income, and the deduction under section 80IB(10) had to be examined at the venture level rather than against the individual member.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:40:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 588 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326474</link>
      <description>A real estate project arrangement was treated as a genuine joint venture and Association of Persons because the parties acted for a common commercial purpose, implemented profit and loss sharing, and used venture-level registrations and sale deeds. The supplementary agreement was accepted as a valid clarification of earlier ambiguity, and the form of the arrangement was not allowed to override its substance. On that basis, amounts withdrawn by a member from the venture were not taxable separately in that member&#039;s hands as business income, and the deduction under section 80IB(10) had to be examined at the venture level rather than against the individual member.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>