<?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>2016 (3) TMI 1490 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462183</link>
    <description>The ITAT Cochin allowed deduction under Section 80IB for housing project development, ruling that project registration in the assessee&#039;s name or land ownership is not mandatory. The tribunal held that developers can undertake projects on others&#039; land with consent, citing Radhe Developers precedent. Additionally, compensation expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure based on Alembic Chemical Works, emphasizing business purpose over payment nature. Website expenses for marketing and e-brochures were also permitted as revenue expenditure, following Indian Visit Com and Polyplex Corp precedents. The CIT(A)&#039;s confirmation of the AO&#039;s disallowances was overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 18:57:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=825700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1490 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462183</link>
      <description>The ITAT Cochin allowed deduction under Section 80IB for housing project development, ruling that project registration in the assessee&#039;s name or land ownership is not mandatory. The tribunal held that developers can undertake projects on others&#039; land with consent, citing Radhe Developers precedent. Additionally, compensation expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure based on Alembic Chemical Works, emphasizing business purpose over payment nature. Website expenses for marketing and e-brochures were also permitted as revenue expenditure, following Indian Visit Com and Polyplex Corp precedents. The CIT(A)&#039;s confirmation of the AO&#039;s disallowances was overturned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>