https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432858 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, determining that the assessee qualified as a 'developer' under Section 80IA(4) instead of a 'work contractor'. The additional ground for deduction under Section 80IA(iv) was accepted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was quashed due to the claim being bona fide. However, the claims regarding repair expenses and Employees' PF & Welfare Fund were dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were granted. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2023 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432858 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, determining that the assessee qualified as a 'developer' under Section 80IA(4) instead of a 'work contractor'. The additional ground for deduction under Section 80IA(iv) was accepted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was quashed due to the claim being bona fide. However, the claims regarding repair expenses and Employees' PF & Welfare Fund were dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were granted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432858