https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756683 A promoter's fresh completion timeline declared while registering an ongoing project did not override the possession date fixed in the agreement for sale, so delay interest under the Real Estate Act continued to run from the contractual default date. The Court also held that the promoter was not entitled to exclude the COVID-19 lockdown period from interest liability because it was already in default before the pandemic and possession remained withheld. The Tribunal's directions on interest were sustained, and the promoter remained liable for the consequences of delayed handover. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Aug 2024 10:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756683 A promoter's fresh completion timeline declared while registering an ongoing project did not override the possession date fixed in the agreement for sale, so delay interest under the Real Estate Act continued to run from the contractual default date. The Court also held that the promoter was not entitled to exclude the COVID-19 lockdown period from interest liability because it was already in default before the pandemic and possession remained withheld. The Tribunal's directions on interest were sustained, and the promoter remained liable for the consequences of delayed handover. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756683