https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468574 Additions based on seized material and a third-party statement were rejected because there was no corroborative evidence and the assessee was denied cross-examination. Deduction under section 80IB(10) was upheld because land ownership was not treated as essential where the assessee controlled, developed, and built the housing project and was not shown to be a mere works contractor. Interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted for a business advance, the alleged cash payment was held unproved on the record, and the provision for expenses was treated as an accrued project cost rather than a contingent liability. en-us Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2026 20:58:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468574 Additions based on seized material and a third-party statement were rejected because there was no corroborative evidence and the assessee was denied cross-examination. Deduction under section 80IB(10) was upheld because land ownership was not treated as essential where the assessee controlled, developed, and built the housing project and was not shown to be a mere works contractor. Interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted for a business advance, the alleged cash payment was held unproved on the record, and the provision for expenses was treated as an accrued project cost rather than a contingent liability. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468574