<?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 (6) TMI 1031 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344760</link>
    <description>Housing-project deduction eligibility was addressed by applying the approach adopted for earlier assessment years, including the competent approval authority, delayed completion certificate, treatment of separate blocks, and allotment conditions. The deduction issue required examination in accordance with that earlier approach and was partly accepted for statistical purposes. Employee ESI/PF contributions paid before the due date for filing the return were treated as allowable under binding jurisdictional precedent; the related disallowance was deleted. The Revenue therefore succeeded only partly on the housing-project deduction issue, while its challenge to deletion of the employee-contribution disallowance failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:52:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=475622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 1031 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344760</link>
      <description>Housing-project deduction eligibility was addressed by applying the approach adopted for earlier assessment years, including the competent approval authority, delayed completion certificate, treatment of separate blocks, and allotment conditions. The deduction issue required examination in accordance with that earlier approach and was partly accepted for statistical purposes. Employee ESI/PF contributions paid before the due date for filing the return were treated as allowable under binding jurisdictional precedent; the related disallowance was deleted. The Revenue therefore succeeded only partly on the housing-project deduction issue, while its challenge to deletion of the employee-contribution disallowance failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>