CIT v. Radhe Developers

341 ITR 403High Court2012#1000 most cited

What is CIT v. Radhe Developers authority for?

Ownership of land is not a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act. The focus should be on whether the assessee undertook the development and construction of the housing project.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Radhe Developers · Section 80IB(10) · ownership of land · housing project · developer · construction · deduction · Gujarat High Court

Also reported as

17 Taxmann.com 156204 Taxmann 543

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153CSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 254Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 80ia(4)(i)section 80iabsection 8osection 80ib(10)section 80ia(4)deduction under section 80iainfrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80iasection 80isection 80ibsection 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Radhe Developers

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, into the provisions which has not been provided by the legislature [See CIT Vs Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 ]. One can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear Vs State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or relie…

Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part on the grounds argued before us whereas the appeal of the revenue stands

ITA 3892/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 92C

…said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, into the provisions which has not been provided by the legislature [See CIT Vs Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 ]. One can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear Vs State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or relie…

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part on the grounds argued before us whereas the appeal of the revenue stands

ITA 3765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 92C

…said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, into the provisions which has not been provided by the legislature [See CIT Vs Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 ]. One can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear Vs State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or relie…

Voltas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6612/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Voltas Limited Asst. Cit Range-8(3)(2) Voltas House-A, 4Th Floor, Vs. Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai 400 033 Pan No. Aaacv2809D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-8(3)(2) Voltas Limited R. No.615, 6Th Floor, Vs. Voltas House-A, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400 033 Pan No. Aaacv2809 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Uodal Raj Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, into the provisions which has not P a g e | 10 been provided by the legislature [See CIT Vs Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 ]. One can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear Vs State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or reli…

M/S. Vaibhav Construction, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2692/AHD/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2019AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…under section 80- IB(10) met disallowance on ground that assessee was not owner of land and development permission was also not granted to assessee but to a co-operative housing society who was owner of said land - High Court in CIT v. Radhe Developers 120121 341 ITR 403/204 Taxman 543/17 tajcmann.com 156 (Gup held that assessees are entitled to benefit under section 80-IB(10) even where title of lands had not passed on to assessees and in some cases, development permissions may also have been obtained in name of original land owners - Whether facts being identical, disallowance was to be deleted - Held, yes [Par…

M/S. Vaibhav Construction, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1597/AHD/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2019AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…under section 80- IB(10) met disallowance on ground that assessee was not owner of land and development permission was also not granted to assessee but to a co-operative housing society who was owner of said land - High Court in CIT v. Radhe Developers 120121 341 ITR 403/204 Taxman 543/17 tajcmann.com 156 (Gup held that assessees are entitled to benefit under section 80-IB(10) even where title of lands had not passed on to assessees and in some cases, development permissions may also have been obtained in name of original land owners - Whether facts being identical, disallowance was to be deleted - Held, yes [Par…

M/S. Pratham Developers, Vadodara vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 3086/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Milind Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 801Section 80I

…isaged in section 80IB(10) of the act. 6. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before teh ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the appeal after following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj). 7. We have heard rival contention on issue and perusesd the mateira on record carefully. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the act in respect of (1) Pratham Citadel Project (2) Pratham Vatika Project (3) Pratham Shrusti Project (4) Pratham Residency Project (5) Pratham Vitas Project. On perusal of supporting documents fi…

The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Pratham Developers, Baroda

ITA 2000/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Milind Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 801Section 80I

…isaged in section 80IB(10) of the act. 6. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before teh ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the appeal after following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj). 7. We have heard rival contention on issue and perusesd the mateira on record carefully. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the act in respect of (1) Pratham Citadel Project (2) Pratham Vatika Project (3) Pratham Shrusti Project (4) Pratham Residency Project (5) Pratham Vitas Project. On perusal of supporting documents fi…

The DCIT, (Central)- I, Bhopal vs. M/S. Ag8 Ventures Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

ITA 473/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ee is not owner of the land of which project is claimed to have been undertaken. The similar issue was before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in [ITA Nos.472&473/Ind/2015 & CO 19/Ind/2016] [M/s. AG8 Ventures Ltd., Bhopal] the case of CIT Vs. Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403, wherein the Hon'ble High Court was of the view that the ownership of the land is not sine-qua-non for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, this objection of the A.O. is contrary to the judicial pronouncements cannot be sustained. Further, the A.O’s objection that the assessee is merely acting as a co…

The DCIT, (Central)- I, Bhopal vs. M/S. Ag8 Ventures Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

ITA 472/IND/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ee is not owner of the land of which project is claimed to have been undertaken. The similar issue was before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in [ITA Nos.472&473/Ind/2015 & CO 19/Ind/2016] [M/s. AG8 Ventures Ltd., Bhopal] the case of CIT Vs. Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403, wherein the Hon'ble High Court was of the view that the ownership of the land is not sine-qua-non for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, this objection of the A.O. is contrary to the judicial pronouncements cannot be sustained. Further, the A.O’s objection that the assessee is merely acting as a co…

Welspun Projects Ltd.(Formerly Known As Msk Projects (India) Ltd.), Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Range-4, Baroda

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…bunal has also considered various cases which were referred to by the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar in the case of M/s. TRG Industries (supra). The Hon'ble Tribunal Ahmedabad has further considered the following two relevant judgements: (i) CIT vs. Radhe Developers, 341 ITR 403 (Guj.) (ii) GVPR Engineers Ltd. vs. ACIT, 21 Taxmann.com 25 (Hyd.) ITA No.1864/Ahd/2013 and 225.Ahd/2014 2.10 The Hon'ble Tribunal has succinctly brought out the difference between a “developer” and a “contractor” at para-13 of the order which is reproduced below for ready reference: “13. In the background of the above discussion, it can be sum…

Welspun Projects Ltd.(Formerly Known As Msk Projects (India) Ltd.), Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Baroda

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1864/AHD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…bunal has also considered various cases which were referred to by the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar in the case of M/s. TRG Industries (supra). The Hon'ble Tribunal Ahmedabad has further considered the following two relevant judgements: (i) CIT vs. Radhe Developers, 341 ITR 403 (Guj.) (ii) GVPR Engineers Ltd. vs. ACIT, 21 Taxmann.com 25 (Hyd.) ITA No.1864/Ahd/2013 and 225.Ahd/2014 2.10 The Hon'ble Tribunal has succinctly brought out the difference between a “developer” and a “contractor” at para-13 of the order which is reproduced below for ready reference: “13. In the background of the above discussion, it can be sum…

ACIT 31(1), Mumbai vs. Gundecha Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4266/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…1 ITA 4266/Mum/2015 & CO 74/Mum/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI Before Shri Joginder Singh(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.4266/Mum/2015 (Assessment year: 2007-08) ACIT-31(1), Mumbai vs M/s Gundecha Builders, 141, Gundecha House, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (W),Mumbai-400 062 PAN : AAAFG0848E APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. 74/Mum/2017 (Arising out of I.T.A No.4266/Mum/2015) (Assessment year: 2007-08) M/s Gundecha Builders, 141, vs ACIT-31(1), Mumbai Gundecha House, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (W),Mumbai-400 062 CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT Assessee by…

Shri Mukeshbhai Vitthalbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 447/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Antony Pariath, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC/D” BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 447 & 448/Ahd/2015 (Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Mukeshbhai Vitthalbhai Patel, C/o V. P. Patel & Co. Adv., A-102, Akshardham, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad – 4 Appellant Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward – 3, Gandhinagar Respondent PAN: ACKPP7110L आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee : Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Antony Pariath, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.0…

M/S. Samrat Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1147/AHD/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S. S. Godara.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Roopchand, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 80I

…tisfied and is in further appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and considered facts of the casein the light of the applicable legal position. 6. We find that, in the case of CIT Vs Radhe Developers [(2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj)], Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court had an occasion to consider the issue of ownership of land, on which housing project is developed, in the context of eligibility of deduction under section 80IB(10). Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has, in this context, inter alia observed as follows: 32. Sec. 80-16(10) of the Act thus provides for ded…

Saswat Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan , DR
Section 80Section 80I

…oss account, the assessee has shown the entire sale consideration receipts for sale of apartments as its business receipts. As regards the ownership of the land, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers, 341 ITR 403 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 80- IB of the Act requires involvement of an undertaking in developing and building housing projects approved by the local authority. The provisions nowhere required that only those developers who themselves own the land would receive the deduction under s. 80-IB(10) of the Act. Neither the provisi…

Unique Star Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1077/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan
Section 153ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एफ”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.1077/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/s Unique Star Developers, Dy. Commissioner of Income 201, Shraddha Residncy, Tax-Central Circle-7, बनाम/ Chandavarkar road, Mumbai. Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AACFU0114F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mrs.Padmaja सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 15.2.2017 घोष…

ITO 18(20(4), Mumbai vs. Unity Ratibha Consortium, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3071/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ito – 18(2)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/S.Unity Pratibha Consortium, 1252, Pushpanjali, Old Prabhadevi Road, Dadar – West, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aaaau1491N Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist Assessee By Shri Harshavardhana Datar Date Of Hearing 23/03/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2017

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & ITO – 18(2)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/s.Unity Pratibha Consortium, 1252, Pushpanjali, Old Prabhadevi Road, Dadar – West, Mumbai – 400 012 PAN/GIR No. AAAAU1491N Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri B.S. Bist Assessee by Shri Harshavardhana Datar Date of Hearing 23/03/2017 Date of Pronouncement 31/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-19, Mumbai dated 21/02/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 in the matter of order passed u/s…

M/S. Vaishali Developers & Builders, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 77/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80I

…erefore, it was argued that the assessee should be treated as developer and contractor of the project in the light of decision in the case of CIT vs. Amlatas Associates [2011] 75 taxmann.com 183(Guj) following judgement in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 (Guj) wherein it was held that the assessee had, in part performance of the agreement to sell the land in question , was given possession thereof and had also carried out the construction work for development of housing project. The learned Counsel submitted that the combined reading of section 2(47) (v) and section 53A of the Transfer of Propert…

ACIT/DCIT 31(2), Mumbai vs. Patel Pratibha Jv, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Harshwardhan DatarFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 44A

…ualify the business of execution of works contract after segregating the same from development contract. In the context of the section 80IB(10) after examining the retrospective effect of explanation Hon.Gujarat High Court in matter of CIT V. Radhe Developers 204 Taxmann 543 (ITA 546 of 2008) has held as under :- Para 30. The essence of sub-section (10) of Section 80IB, therefore, requires involvement of an undertaking in developing and building housing projects approved by the local authority. Apparently, such provision would be aimed at giving encouragement to providing housing units in the urban and semi- urba…