https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189155 The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The Tribunal ruled that the construction of commercial area did not violate clause (d) as the amendment was prospective, not retrospective. Additionally, the alleged violation of clause (c) due to excess area in the housing project was rejected, as the flats were sold separately and not combined by the assessee. Compliance with statutory provisions and the application of tax law amendments were emphasized in the judgment. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189155 The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The Tribunal ruled that the construction of commercial area did not violate clause (d) as the amendment was prospective, not retrospective. Additionally, the alleged violation of clause (c) due to excess area in the housing project was rejected, as the flats were sold separately and not combined by the assessee. Compliance with statutory provisions and the application of tax law amendments were emphasized in the judgment. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189155