<?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 (5) TMI 574 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327593</link>
    <description>For deduction under section 80IB(10), land ownership is not indispensable where the assessee has dominant control over the housing project and develops it at its own risk and cost. An assessee who enters into a development agreement, bears development expenses, manages planning, approvals, bookings and possession, and retains the project&#039;s profit or loss is treated as a developer rather than a mere works contractor. Applying the jurisdictional High Court&#039;s view, the Tribunal held that title in the land need not have passed if the assessee was not simply executing a contract for work. The deduction was therefore allowable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2016 00:52:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 574 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327593</link>
      <description>For deduction under section 80IB(10), land ownership is not indispensable where the assessee has dominant control over the housing project and develops it at its own risk and cost. An assessee who enters into a development agreement, bears development expenses, manages planning, approvals, bookings and possession, and retains the project&#039;s profit or loss is treated as a developer rather than a mere works contractor. Applying the jurisdictional High Court&#039;s view, the Tribunal held that title in the land need not have passed if the assessee was not simply executing a contract for work. The deduction was therefore allowable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>