https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774992 The Bombay HC upheld ITAT's decision regarding calculation of "built up area" for Section 80IB(10) deduction eligibility. The court held that "built up area" should include only the carpet area within residential units at floor level, comprising actual habitable space enclosed by walls, along with usable projections and balconies, plus wall thickness. Common areas shared with other units are excluded. The HC confirmed exclusion of flower bed area from "built up area" calculation as it lies outside residential units, is open to sky, below floor level, and not habitable or effectively usable by flat purchasers - merely ornamental. Similarly, service areas (common areas for pipes), window projections (unsafe, 3 ft above floor), and cupboard projections were correctly excluded by CIT(A) as they don't constitute habitable space within the statutory definition. No substantial questions of law arose. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774992 The Bombay HC upheld ITAT's decision regarding calculation of "built up area" for Section 80IB(10) deduction eligibility. The court held that "built up area" should include only the carpet area within residential units at floor level, comprising actual habitable space enclosed by walls, along with usable projections and balconies, plus wall thickness. Common areas shared with other units are excluded. The HC confirmed exclusion of flower bed area from "built up area" calculation as it lies outside residential units, is open to sky, below floor level, and not habitable or effectively usable by flat purchasers - merely ornamental. Similarly, service areas (common areas for pipes), window projections (unsafe, 3 ft above floor), and cupboard projections were correctly excluded by CIT(A) as they don't constitute habitable space within the statutory definition. No substantial questions of law arose. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774992