<?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 (10) TMI 633 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333613</link>
    <description>The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the order under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2007-08. The court upheld the decision that the approval dates for the housing projects were distinct, leading to the denial of the deduction claim under Section 80IB(10) for the assessee. The court found that the projects approved in 2003 and 2005 were different, and as there was no evidence of a perverse finding, the legal question raised was not entertained. No costs were awarded in this decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:18:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 633 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333613</link>
      <description>The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the order under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2007-08. The court upheld the decision that the approval dates for the housing projects were distinct, leading to the denial of the deduction claim under Section 80IB(10) for the assessee. The court found that the projects approved in 2003 and 2005 were different, and as there was no evidence of a perverse finding, the legal question raised was not entertained. No costs were awarded in this decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333613</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>