<?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>2013 (11) TMI 1745 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280722</link>
    <description>For deduction under section 80-IB(10), a housing project was interpreted in its ordinary commercial sense as a residential development comprising one building or a group of buildings, and the assessee&#039;s project qualified on that basis. The assessee was treated as a developer, not a works contractor, because it controlled development, took possession, arranged infrastructure, negotiated with buyers and bore commercial risk. The statutory conditions on approval, completion and minimum plot area were also found satisfied on the facts. An open terrace was not included in built-up area because it was not a balcony or projection under the statutory definition, so the area limit was not breached. The deduction was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=571737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1745 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280722</link>
      <description>For deduction under section 80-IB(10), a housing project was interpreted in its ordinary commercial sense as a residential development comprising one building or a group of buildings, and the assessee&#039;s project qualified on that basis. The assessee was treated as a developer, not a works contractor, because it controlled development, took possession, arranged infrastructure, negotiated with buyers and bore commercial risk. The statutory conditions on approval, completion and minimum plot area were also found satisfied on the facts. An open terrace was not included in built-up area because it was not a balcony or projection under the statutory definition, so the area limit was not breached. The deduction was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>