<?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>2017 (1) TMI 442 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337362</link>
    <description>A beneficial proviso to section 80-IB(10) for slum-redevelopment housing projects was construed liberally, so a project undertaken under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority scheme remained eligible despite the area being under one acre and despite a later CBDT notification. The later notification was treated as clarificatory and not as a restriction capable of curtailing the statutory proviso; the approval became operative once the project satisfied the scheme conditions and the commencement certificate was issued. On rent expenditure, documentary support and the absence of contrary material showed the expense was genuine and for business purposes, so the disallowance was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2017 10:16:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 442 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337362</link>
      <description>A beneficial proviso to section 80-IB(10) for slum-redevelopment housing projects was construed liberally, so a project undertaken under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority scheme remained eligible despite the area being under one acre and despite a later CBDT notification. The later notification was treated as clarificatory and not as a restriction capable of curtailing the statutory proviso; the approval became operative once the project satisfied the scheme conditions and the commencement certificate was issued. On rent expenditure, documentary support and the absence of contrary material showed the expense was genuine and for business purposes, so the disallowance was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>