<?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 (11) TMI 1303 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335285</link>
    <description>Compensation paid by a developer to flat owners for delayed possession was treated as allowable business expenditure because the liability arose from the promoter&#039;s statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The payment was supported by confirmations, was compensatory rather than penal, and was incurred to meet business exigencies and protect commercial interests. The later statutory framework under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was noted as consistent with recognising delay compensation to allottees as a builder liability. The disallowance was therefore reversed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:29:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1303 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335285</link>
      <description>Compensation paid by a developer to flat owners for delayed possession was treated as allowable business expenditure because the liability arose from the promoter&#039;s statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The payment was supported by confirmations, was compensatory rather than penal, and was incurred to meet business exigencies and protect commercial interests. The later statutory framework under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was noted as consistent with recognising delay compensation to allottees as a builder liability. The disallowance was therefore reversed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>