https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100918 Rule 27 permits a respondent to support the appellate order on an additional ground, and the alleged allotment breach could not justify disallowance in Assessment Year 2011-12 because the Revenue's material related to a later year. On the merits, the Revenue failed to prove breach of the beneficial housing-project deduction condition under section 80IB(10)(f): it relied mainly on a third-party statement, produced no reliable documentary evidence that the flats were really allotted to one person through nominees, and was denied effective cross-examination. The Tribunal treated the statutory condition as requiring cogent proof and sustained deletion of the disallowance; the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 was rejected on the same reasoning. en-us Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:43 +0530 Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100918 Rule 27 permits a respondent to support the appellate order on an additional ground, and the alleged allotment breach could not justify disallowance in Assessment Year 2011-12 because the Revenue's material related to a later year. On the merits, the Revenue failed to prove breach of the beneficial housing-project deduction condition under section 80IB(10)(f): it relied mainly on a third-party statement, produced no reliable documentary evidence that the flats were really allotted to one person through nominees, and was denied effective cross-examination. The Tribunal treated the statutory condition as requiring cogent proof and sustained deletion of the disallowance; the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 was rejected on the same reasoning. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:43 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100918