<?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>2022 (3) TMI 1063 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420025</link>
    <description>Deduction under section 80IB(10) was considered available where the housing project satisfied the statutory completion requirement, including completion certificate and approval timelines, and earlier Tribunal reasoning supported the claim for the initial years. For later years, the recorded factual findings showed timely completion, so the deduction was treated as admissible. Payments to sub-contractors were also examined in light of construction activity, TDS compliance where applicable, and entries in the books. The presence of bills or papers at the premises was not treated as enough to prove bogus expenditure, and suspicion alone was insufficient without cogent contrary material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:35:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673830" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1063 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420025</link>
      <description>Deduction under section 80IB(10) was considered available where the housing project satisfied the statutory completion requirement, including completion certificate and approval timelines, and earlier Tribunal reasoning supported the claim for the initial years. For later years, the recorded factual findings showed timely completion, so the deduction was treated as admissible. Payments to sub-contractors were also examined in light of construction activity, TDS compliance where applicable, and entries in the books. The presence of bills or papers at the premises was not treated as enough to prove bogus expenditure, and suspicion alone was insufficient without cogent contrary material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>