https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779021 HC held the joint venture agreement dated 21.12.2005 was not legally effective as the partnership firm did not exist until 29.11.2007, so the firm could not claim investments before its formation. The court found the assessee failed to produce required books, bills and vouchers to prove it acted as developer and therefore rejected the claim under s.80IB(10). Planning approvals being in another entity did not bar a developer's claim, but on facts the AO and CIT(A) findings were restored, the Tribunal's order set aside, and the assessee held not eligible for the deduction. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Mar 2026 18:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779021 HC held the joint venture agreement dated 21.12.2005 was not legally effective as the partnership firm did not exist until 29.11.2007, so the firm could not claim investments before its formation. The court found the assessee failed to produce required books, bills and vouchers to prove it acted as developer and therefore rejected the claim under s.80IB(10). Planning approvals being in another entity did not bar a developer's claim, but on facts the AO and CIT(A) findings were restored, the Tribunal's order set aside, and the assessee held not eligible for the deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779021