https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364589 The court found in favor of the petitioner, ruling that the withdrawal of approval by the DIPP was based on a misappreciation of facts. The court highlighted that the petitioner had consistently communicated the actual built-up area, which was part of the record when the approval was initially granted. The court also noted that the delay in project completion was within a permissible grace period, as established in a previous case. Consequently, the court quashed the withdrawal of approval, directing a reconsideration of the matter with proper hearing and a focus on relevant factors without specifying a minimum constructed area requirement for benefits under the scheme and Income Tax Act. en-us Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Oct 2018 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364589 The court found in favor of the petitioner, ruling that the withdrawal of approval by the DIPP was based on a misappreciation of facts. The court highlighted that the petitioner had consistently communicated the actual built-up area, which was part of the record when the approval was initially granted. The court also noted that the delay in project completion was within a permissible grace period, as established in a previous case. Consequently, the court quashed the withdrawal of approval, directing a reconsideration of the matter with proper hearing and a focus on relevant factors without specifying a minimum constructed area requirement for benefits under the scheme and Income Tax Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364589