<?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>High Court Validates CBDT Notification Limiting Section 80IB(10) Tax Benefits for Slum Redevelopment Projects Between 2004-2008.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85144</link>
    <description>HC upheld the validity of CBDT&#039;s corrigendum notification dated 5 January 2011 restricting deductions u/s 80IB(10) for slum redevelopment projects approved between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2008. The court determined the notification properly aligned with legislative intent, as the proviso for slum redevelopment schemes was introduced prospectively from 1 April 2005. The amendment&#039;s reference to past events did not make it retrospective in nature. The petitioner&#039;s challenge claiming the notification was ultra vires failed, as the court found no legislative intention for retrospective application of the benefits. The deduction claim was rejected for non-compliance with notification conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:44:40 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:44:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=791565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Validates CBDT Notification Limiting Section 80IB(10) Tax Benefits for Slum Redevelopment Projects Between 2004-2008.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85144</link>
      <description>HC upheld the validity of CBDT&#039;s corrigendum notification dated 5 January 2011 restricting deductions u/s 80IB(10) for slum redevelopment projects approved between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2008. The court determined the notification properly aligned with legislative intent, as the proviso for slum redevelopment schemes was introduced prospectively from 1 April 2005. The amendment&#039;s reference to past events did not make it retrospective in nature. The petitioner&#039;s challenge claiming the notification was ultra vires failed, as the court found no legislative intention for retrospective application of the benefits. The deduction claim was rejected for non-compliance with notification conditions.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:44:40 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>