https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92880 HC held that the joint venture development agreement dated 21.12.2005 was not legally effective as against the assessee firm because the partnership deed post-dating that agreement vested legal status in the firm only from 29.11.2007; consequently the firm could not substantively include investments made prior to its constitution. The Court found the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving it acted as developer or produced requisite books, bills and vouchers, allowing the Assessing Officer's adverse inferences. Although planning approval/completion certificates in another entity's name do not per se defeat a s.80IB(10) claim, on the facts the Tribunal's acceptance was set aside, AO and CIT(A) orders restored, and the assessee held ineligible for deduction under s.80IB(10). en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530 Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92880 HC held that the joint venture development agreement dated 21.12.2005 was not legally effective as against the assessee firm because the partnership deed post-dating that agreement vested legal status in the firm only from 29.11.2007; consequently the firm could not substantively include investments made prior to its constitution. The Court found the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving it acted as developer or produced requisite books, bills and vouchers, allowing the Assessing Officer's adverse inferences. Although planning approval/completion certificates in another entity's name do not per se defeat a s.80IB(10) claim, on the facts the Tribunal's acceptance was set aside, AO and CIT(A) orders restored, and the assessee held ineligible for deduction under s.80IB(10). Highlights Income Tax Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92880