Facts: Vardhan Builders claimed a deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a residential project developed during AY 09-10. The AO rejected the claim, citing that some flats exceeded the 1000 square feet limit. The assessee provided evidence including approved plans, occupancy certificates, and individual possession letters, all indicating compliance with the 1000 square feet limit.
Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of Vardhan Builders, emphasizing the validity of the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) based on the evidence provided. The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts decision and refused to interfere, recognizing the validity of the deduction claimed by Vardhan Builders. The Court highlighted the significance of the approved plans, occupancy certificates, and the absence of evidence indicating a violation of the 1000 square feet limit, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue.

Facts: Vardhan Builders claimed a deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a residential project developed during AY 09-10. The AO rejected the claim, citing that some flats exceeded the 1000 square feet limit. The assessee provided evidence including approved plans, occupancy certificates, and individual possession letters, all indicating compliance with the 1000 square feet limit.
Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of Vardhan Builders, emphasizing the validity of the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) based on the evidence provided. The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts decision and refused to interfere, recognizing the validity of the deduction claimed by Vardhan Builders. The Court highlighted the significance of the approved plans, occupancy certificates, and the absence of evidence indicating a violation of the 1000 square feet limit, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue.

Facts: Vardhan Builders claimed a deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a residential project developed during AY 09-10. The AO rejected the claim, citing that some flats exceeded the 1000 square feet limit. The assessee provided evidence including approved plans, occupancy certificates, and individual possession letters, all indicating compliance with the 1000 square feet limit.
Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of Vardhan Builders, emphasizing the validity of the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) based on the evidence provided. The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts decision and refused to interfere, recognizing the validity of the deduction claimed by Vardhan Builders. The Court highlighted the significance of the approved plans, occupancy certificates, and the absence of evidence indicating a violation of the 1000 square feet limit, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue.

Facts: Vardhan Builders claimed a deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a residential project developed during AY 09-10. The AO rejected the claim, citing that some flats exceeded the 1000 square feet limit. The assessee provided evidence including approved plans, occupancy certificates, and individual possession letters, all indicating compliance with the 1000 square feet limit.
Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of Vardhan Builders, emphasizing the validity of the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) based on the evidence provided. The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts decision and refused to interfere, recognizing the validity of the deduction claimed by Vardhan Builders. The Court highlighted the significance of the approved plans, occupancy certificates, and the absence of evidence indicating a violation of the 1000 square feet limit, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue.

Facts: Vardhan Builders claimed a deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a residential project developed during AY 09-10. The AO rejected the claim, citing that some flats exceeded the 1000 square feet limit. The assessee provided evidence including approved plans, occupancy certificates, and individual possession letters, all indicating compliance with the 1000 square feet limit.
Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of Vardhan Builders, emphasizing the validity of the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) based on the evidence provided. The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts decision and refused to interfere, recognizing the validity of the deduction claimed by Vardhan Builders. The Court highlighted the significance of the approved plans, occupancy certificates, and the absence of evidence indicating a violation of the 1000 square feet limit, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue.

Facts: Vardhan Builders claimed a deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a residential project developed during AY 09-10. The AO rejected the claim, citing that some flats exceeded the 1000 square feet limit. The assessee provided evidence including approved plans, occupancy certificates, and individual possession letters, all indicating compliance with the 1000 square feet limit.
Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of Vardhan Builders, emphasizing the validity of the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) based on the evidence provided. The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts decision and refused to interfere, recognizing the validity of the deduction claimed by Vardhan Builders. The Court highlighted the significance of the approved plans, occupancy certificates, and the absence of evidence indicating a violation of the 1000 square feet limit, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue.