|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 754 Records
-
2020 (5) TMI 434
Deduction u/s 54F - Acquiring rights in property - period of holding of capital asset for the purposes of classification of capital gains is to be seen with reference to date of allotment of land or from the date of formal execution of sale deed for registration - as per assessee letter of allotment issued by BDA in respect of land parcel (Site no. 37) in question has given effective right to the assessee to assert its command on the asset which right is includible in the expression ‘property’ for the purpose of s.2(14) - whether letter of allotment would give effective right over the capital asset pending execution of formal agreement spelling out all the exact terms and conditions for acquisition? - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019 (1) TMI 1361 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has taken note of CBDT circular no. 471 dated 15th October 1986 as well as CBDT circular 672 dated 16th Dec. 1993 and concluded that the assessee shall be deemed to have acquired rights in the property on the date of issue of allotment letter for the purposes of expression ‘capital asset’.
Assessee in the instant case has not only been issued allotment letter, he has also made full payment to the authority concerned immediately thereafter. Thus, the asset is required to be held as long term capital asset even if the later date of payment is reckoned. Hence, the gains arising on sale of such asset has been correctly claimed as ‘Long term capital gains.’ Consequently, all the benefits flowing from such gains would be entitled to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (5) TMI 433
Exemption u/s.54F - AO found that since the assessee purchased the property by means of two registered sale deed, the property relating to second registered document may not be appurtenant to the building which was purchased through the original registered sale deed - HELD THAT:- The assessee has purchased the entire property within a span of 13 days in the month of February, 2015. An harmonious reading of the agreement for sale of the property and the registered sale deed clearly indicates that the assessee intended to purchase the entire property including the vacant land from the vendor Shri R. Selva Kumar.
Two registered sale deeds were executed. There can be various reasons for executing the two sale deeds. One of the reason presumably as rightly submitted by the assessee that the vendor might have insisted for execution of two sale deeds in order to avoid deduction of tax at source. Whatever may be the reason the existing residential building as well as the vacant land adjacent to are appurtenant to each other.
This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the vacant site purchased by the assessee which is adjacent to the residential house is necessary for convenient enjoyment of the building. Therefore for all practical purpose, the vacant site adjacent to the existing building which was purchased by the assessee through the second sale deed also has to be construed as land appurtenant to the residential house. Hence the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s.54 - Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 432
Disallowance of depreciation and expenses in respect of the new car purchased - questioned car was registered in the name of the Director - HELD THAT:- As decided in EDWISE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. [2015 (12) TMI 297 - ITAT MUMBAI] depreciation is allowable in the hands of the company, even if it is registered in the name of its director provided that the vehicle is used for the purpose of business of company and income derived there from was shown as income of the company. In the instant case there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicles are used for the purpose of business of the assessee company. the assessee company should be considered as owner for all practical purposes and hence it is entitled for depreciation - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (5) TMI 431
Addition u/s 40A(3) being 20% of the amount paid - assessee was acquiring the land from the various farmers by paying cash to them - HELD THAT:- Disallowance u/s 40A(3) on identical facts and circumstances is decided by the several of the coordinate benches in the group cases holding that provisions of section 40A(3) does not apply to the facts of the case.
The decision in case of Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd [2014 (12) TMI 254 - ITAT DELHI] has held that the provisions of section 40A(3) has been wrongly invoked as no expenses related to the addition has been claimed by the assessee but the amount was shown in the capital work in progress at the time of purchase of land which was reimbursed - assessee was acquiring the land from the various farmers by paying cash to them and debiting it to the capital work in progress account. This sum was not claimed as an “expenditure‟ in the profit and loss account. Therefore, there was no question of claiming deduction of this sum. The land was acquired on behalf of the other company who paid the assessee through account payee cheque. Such sum was credited in the capital work in progress account. The whole transaction of purchase of land as well as transfer to the sister concern was not routed through profit and loss account but were shown in the balance sheet. On these facts, coordinate bench held that provision of section 40A(3) of the Act do not apply.
Addition on account of additional payments made for purchase of land - HELD THAT:- Identical disallowances were made in case of the other group concerns and also in case of Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd [2014 (12) TMI 254 - ITAT DELHI] wherein as deleted the identical addition.
-
2020 (5) TMI 430
Issuance of license and allocation of quota qua Calcined Pet Coke - Request for allocation of CPC - limitation on quantum of CPC - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M.C. MEHTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2018 (11) TMI 1352 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Calcined Pet Coke (CPC) (domestic as well as imported) can be used as raw-material for anode making in the Aluminium industry with the revised BIS specifications, the imported raw-material cannot exceed 0.5 MT per annum in total.
Nothing survives in the captioned writ petition and the interlocutory application, and the same can, thus, be disposed of - The matter is, however, directed to be listed for compliance, at the request of counsel for parties, on 04.06.2020.
-
2020 (5) TMI 429
Bail application - applicant has chosen to file the present bail application under sections 439 Cr.P.C. for immediate release till such time that the pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed - main case of applicant is that due to Covid-19 (Corona Virus) infection, the applicants being a sick person has great risk to his life if he is kept in jail where there are much chances of he being infected by said Corona Virus - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the Committee has resolved to release the under trial prisoners on interim bail, who are facing criminal cases in which the maximum sentence is of 7 years and presently confined in jails, for a period of eight weeks by the competent courts. Thus, the contention of Assistant Solicitor General Sri Gyan Prakash appearing on behalf of the respondent, who vehemently argued that the applicant is not entitled for bail/interim bail as per the order passed by the Apex Court Suo Motu in the aforesaid writ petition by which a High Powered Committee has been constituted as the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the under trial prisoners as the offence in which the applicant has been confined in jail is punishable with a maximum sentence upto 10 years, appears to have substance - Moreover, so far as the risk of applicant being infected due to Corona Virus because of his illness in the lack of following strict norms of social distancing measures including face to face interaction is concerned, it has been pointed by learned Assistant Solicitor General that the applicant is not such a sick person, who is not able to perform normal pursuits of his life as he is only suffering from urinary infection and stated to be having low blood sugar for which there is adequate facility of his treatment in the jail hospital and the applicant had himself admitted that he was admitted in the jail hospital on 27.3.2020.
Taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence which shakes the conscience of the society and public at large, investigation being still pending and there are strong apprehension that there would be chances of tampering of evidence by the applicant, the prayer of the applicant for grant of immediate release till such time that pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed, is hereby refused - the prayer made in the present bail application for immediate release on bail till such time that pandemic COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is curtailed to the applicant, namely, Rahul Kothari is hereby rejected.
Application dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 428
Public offer of shares - no private placement as per assessee company as per WTM - offer to more than 49 persons - violation of the provisions of the Companies Act - HELD THAT:- Evidence indicates that an invitation was made by the management of the company to selected persons for subscription or purchase by less than fifty persons. Such persons receiving the offer or invitation was not calculated directly or indirectly to be availed of by other persons, and consequently such invitation or offer could not be treated as an offer or invitation to the public. The finding of the WTM on this aspect is absolutely perverse.
The reasoning given that merely because three allottees had made the complaints indicates that the offer or invitation falls in the category of one which is calculated to result directly or indirectly in the shares, debentures becoming available to persons other than those receiving those offer or invitation is based on surmises and conjectures. No evidence has come forward by these complainants or otherwise to show that the company had made a public offer other than these 49 persons.
Allotment was made to less than fifty allottees. Once allotment is made to less than fifty allottees by way of private allotment the first proviso to section 67(3) clearly makes it a private issue and not a public issue. Consequently, there is no violation of the provisions of the Companies Act. The order of the WTM cannot be sustained and is quashed. The appeals are allowed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 427
Shares acquired without making any public announcement - as per WTM Acquisition of the shares were against Regulation 3(2) of the SAST Regulations - HELD THAT:- Though a presumption that the promoters would be persons acting in concert can be raised the same can be rebutted either by positive evidence or by negative facts discernable through the conduct of the parties. The fact that the appellant Company did not participate in acquisition of additional shares by two of the other appellants, the fact that there is no resolution passed by the present appellant and fact that there is no communication on record from the appellant Company would show that present appellant Company cannot be termed as person acting in concert. The present appeal will have to be allowed.
In the present case, what we find is that Appellant Nos.5 and 6 had not deliberately acquired the shares of the target Company but they were willy nilly required to accept the shares due to inability of the borrowers to repay the loan amount. Besides this the target Company was declared as sick Company under the BIFR and draft rehabilitation scheme was also under consideration. Thus, the act of the Appellant nos. 5 and 6 cannot be equated with corporate raiders trying to circumvent the provision of Regulation in order to seek control of the target Company. They were already promoters of the target Company and they had acquired the shares beyond the limits permitted by the creeping acquisition method. In the circumstances, the direction of the WTM cannot be sustained.
-
2020 (5) TMI 426
Substitution of the director of the Corporate Debtor - impleadment of interim resolution professional - CIRP Process - pre-existing dispute regarding the deficiency of goods and services - HELD THAT:- Prior to filing the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the Adjudicating Authority NCLT filed by the Respondent No. l/Operational Creditor has approached the Construction Equipment Rental Forum (CERA), of which only Respondent No. 1/Operational Creditor is a member vide email dated 9-1-2018 at Page 136 of the Paper Book through its official Mr. Mithlesh Kumar for resolving the existing dispute and wherein, it is claimed that the CERA which is only an association arbitrarily vide its e-mail dated 28-2-2018 at Page 264 directed the Appellant to unilateral release/pay an undisclosed, unjustified and arbitrary amount.
As there was pre-existing dispute between the Parties and the Application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed on behalf of the Operational Creditor (Respondent No. 1) should not have been admitted and the Learned Adjudicating Authority not having considered the entire facts and the law in its correct perspective before passing the Impugned Order dated 8-11-2019 committed error - the Corporate Debtor/Appellant is released from the rigor of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and actions taken by IRP/RP and Committee of Creditors, if any, in view of the Impugned Order are set aside. IRP/RP will hand back the records and management of the Corporate Debtor to the promoters/directors of the Corporate Debtor.
The matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the fee and costs of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' payable to IRP/RP which shall be borne by the Respondent/Operational Creditor - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (5) TMI 425
Seeking stay of the CIRP process - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - time limitation - main grievance of the appellant is that the Adjudicating Authority while passing the order on June 13, 2018 in section 7 application had omitted to consider and adjudicate as to whether the said petition was filed within the period of "limitation" - HELD THAT:- A mere glance of the ingredients of the section 61(1) and (2) of the I and B Code indicates that though any person aggrieved of an order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, this Tribunal is of the earnest opinion that the present appeal preferred by the appellant is per se not maintainable in law because of the established fact that when once a case was admitted under the IBC, the only option available to a party as an "aggrieved person" is to prefer an "appeal" of course in accordance with law, against the "order of admission" already passed and not to prefer an application seeking stay of all the pending proceedings in C. A. No. 455 (PB) of 2018 filed in C. P. (I. B.) No. 160 (PB) of 2018 till its adjudication and dismiss the company petition.
The instant appeal is dismissed as not maintainable but without costs.
-
2020 (5) TMI 424
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - time limitation - Whether the order of Decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad on 17th August, 2018 can be taken into consideration to hold that application under Section 7 of the I&B Code is within period of three years as prescribed under Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963? - HELD THAT:- If the period of limitation is counted from the date of default/ NPA then the period comes to an end in the year 2007. In such a case, the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code is clearly barred by limitation.
By filing an application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, a Decree cannot be executed. In such case, it will be covered by Section 65 of the I&B Code, which stipulates that the insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceedings, if filed, fraudulently or with malicious intent for any purpose other than for the resolution of insolvency, or liquidation, attracts penal action - The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) has failed to consider the aforesaid fact and wrongly held that the date of default took place when the judgment and Decree was passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal on 17th August, 2018.
Thus, in absence of any acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the date of default/ NPA was prior to 2004 and does not shift forward, therefore, the period of limitation for moving application under Section 7 of the I&B Code was for three years, if counted, to be completed in the year 2007. As date of passing of Decree is not the date of default, we hold that the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code was barred by limitation, though the claim may not be barred.
Application dismissed - ‘Corporate Debtor’ is released from all the rigors of ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ - appeal allowed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 423
Maintainability of application - Applicant claiming himself to be the Financial Creditor has claimed to have paid an amount to the Corporate Debtor against the purchase of the land of the Corporate Debtor as earnest money - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record, it is found that there is no agreement, as such, with regard to the sale and purchase between the Corporate Debtor and Applicant. In support of the contention, the Applicant has annexed E-receipt of transfer of funds as well as few counterfoil showing transfer of the amount in the account of Corporate Debtor viz. Digjam Ltd. Apart from these documents, no other document(s) is/are annexed, where from it can be deduced, that the amounts are paid against the agreement for the sale and purchase of land of Corporate Debtor.
It is well settled that the offer and acceptance must be based or founded on three components - certainty, commitment and communication. If any one of the three components is lacking either in the offer or in the acceptance, there cannot be a valid contract - Applicant in this case totally failed to produce any document(s) in support of his claim which would make the Applicant even entitled in the category of other "stakeholder" Even if it is assumed for the time that the alleged letter dated 14-9-2018 of the Applicant is received by the Corporate Debtor, then even law does not cast a duty on the person to whom a proposal is made to reply to that proposal and hence acceptance cannot be inferred from the silence of the offeree and as a general rule, a proposal is not accepted by mere silence on the part of the offeree.
The Applicant is claiming himself in the category of clause (f) of sub-section 8 of section 5 which speaks about "any amount raised under any other transaction, including any forward sell or purchase agreement, having the commercial effect of borrowing - In the instant matter, the Applicant has failed to produce any documents/purchase agreement to substantiate his claim and/or show his bona fide as 'financial debt' so as to stand in the footing of "Financial Creditor."
The Applicant in the application pleaded that the amount is paid as earnest money. Basically, earnest money serves two purposes: it remains as security or earnest money for performance of the contract of sale but it becomes part of payment of the purchase money immediately on fulfilment of the contract, which is found absent in this case because of want of documents, such as, Contract Agreement for sale and purchase. Admittedly, there is no contract between the Applicant and Corporate Debtor.
Application dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 422
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the dispute prior to filing of this application was with respect to 10 pieces of damaged glass and the same has been claimed by the applicant to have been settled between the parties by issuance of credit note dated April 1, 2017 which is signed by authorised signatory of both the parties. It is undisputed that the invoices claimed to be due pertain to the period on or before August 21, 2015 being the date of the last invoice of the bunch of invoices asserted to be unpaid, which should normally have been cleared within 7 days. It has been argued by the operational creditor that the amount claimed are not barred by limitation as a fresh period of time should be reckoned from April 1, 2017 the date of the credit note issued by the operational creditor in favour of the corporate debtor - rejecting an application merely on non-filing of memorandum of appearance in accordance with rule 45 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 would hamper justice, in view of the fact that the substantive content of the pre scribed form has been complied with. Hence, the objection of the corporate debtor, in this regard, warrants no further consideration.
While the date of the credit note falls within prescribed period for the purposes of limitation, there is no admission of liability or statement or implication of intention to pay. Thus, a fresh period of limitation cannot start from the date of the credit note. Under the circumstances, the filing of the application on January 7, 2019 beyond the period of three years as per article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 against the date of default on August 28, 2015 is not maintainable and cannot be sustained.
The application is barred by limitation and is dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 421
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of default or not - time limitation - only defence taken by the respondent is that the debt being barred by limitation an application under section 7 of the Code could not be maintained - HELD THAT:- In view of the order of the DRT-I the debt became due and payable with effect from August 17, 2018. The present petition was filed on March 25, 2019 within three years of the date of the order. An application under section 7 can be filed within 3 years as provided under article 137 of the Limitation Act - Admittedly the respondent had committed default in payment of the debt. In view of the orders of the DRT-I, Hyderabad the debt became "due and payable" subsequent to August 17, 2018. Therefore, the defence contention that the debt was time barred cannot be accepted. The issue is answered in the negative.
Existence of default or not - HELD THAT:- In an application under section 7 of the Code the reason for the inability of the respondent in paying off the debt is not required to be looked into by the Adjudicating Authority. What is required to be seen is the default - In this case the default has been satisfactorily proved. Thus the petition needs to be admitted.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (5) TMI 420
Detention of detenue - llicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances - HELD THAT:- Under Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the Authority making an order of preventive detention is required to afford an opportunity to the detenue to make a representation against the order of detention. As far as law relating to representation is concerned, it is fairly well settled.
Non-consideration of the representation made by the petitioner against the order of detention - HELD THAT:- There is absolutely no explanation forthcoming for not forwarding the representation dated 15th April 2020 to the Specially Empowered Officer who had passed the impugned order. Even the representation dated 17th April 2020 made by the petitioner to the Central Government through the Superintendent of Central Prison was not forwarded to the Central Government immediately but the same was forwarded on 20th April, 2020 and it is specifically stated that the same was decided on 30th April 2020. The delay from 20th of April to 30th April 2020 has not been explained at all - Thus, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that there is an inordinate delay in considering the representations made by the petitioner to the Specially Empowered Officer as well as to the Central Government. In fact, there are no efforts made to explain the reasons for such inordinate delay. Hence, there is a complete violation of rights of the petitioner under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and in particular Clause (5) thereof. On account of the inordinate delay in deciding the representations made by the petitioner, the continuation of impugned order of preventive detention is vitiated and therefore the impugned order of detention will have to be set aside.
Impugned order set aside - the petitioner/Mr. Kenneth Jideofor shall be set at liberty forthwith by the Bengaluru Central Prison, if he is not required in connection with any other case - petition allowed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 419
Appointment to the Group 'C' post of Greaser in the Customs Marine Wing falling within the jurisdiction of the Customs Gujarat Zone in pursuance of the Recruitment Notification dated 11.09.2017 - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents and that his name was not reflected in the list of successful candidates declared on 26.02.2018.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has chosen to approach this court after a period of more than two years, without issuing any notice to the other side, we permit the petitioner to approach the respondents with a request to disclose the outcome of the vigilance inquiry undertaken by the respondents in which the petitioner had also participated either by filing an application under the Right to Information Act or by filing a fresh representation as the case may be - On such application / representation being made, the respondents shall furnish necessary reply to the petitioner in respect of the vigilance inquiry undertaken by the respondents within FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of such application or representation from the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (5) TMI 418
Extension of period of limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws - prevailing Covid-19 Virus pandemic situation in India - HELD THAT:- To obviate the difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings - this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities.
This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction - Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts, returnable in four weeks.
-
2020 (5) TMI 417
Extension of Interim stay - extremely limited functioning of courts due to pandemic covid-19 situation and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Since some of the restrictions imposed by the Government of India are still in operation, and taking note of the extraordinary circumstances, in continuation of this Court’s order dated 25th March, 2020, we hereby order that in all matters pending before this Court and Courts subordinate to this Court, wherein the interim orders issued, as mentioned in our order dated 25th March, 2020, were subsisting as on 15.05.2020 and expired or will expire thereafter, the same shall stand automatically extended till 15.06.2020 or until further orders, except where any orders to the contrary have been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in any particular matter, during the intervening period.
Registry is directed to list this matter on 15.06.2020 for further directions.
-
2020 (5) TMI 416
Levy of GST on inward supplies - service supplied by the sub-contracts - landscape development and maintenance of garden work for State and Central Government Departments, all government local bodies (Municipalities and Corporations) etc. and other government undertakings through contract from sub-contracts - recipient of services - challenge to AAR decision - HELD THAT:- In this case, the Appellant who is the recipient of the supply from the sub-contractor is a Co-operative Society and not an entity specified in SI.No 3 and 3A. When this criterion of the Notification is not satisfied, the sub-contractors as suppliers of service, will not be eligible for the exemption under the entries 3 or 3A of the above said Notification.
It is the argument of the Appellant that if the exemption is not available to the sub-contractors, then the GST paid by the Appellant on the inward supply from the sub-contractors will become a cost to them since they will not be eligible to avail the input tax credit of the tax paid on the inward supply, for the reason that the output supply made by them to the Government Department is exempted. While we agree that the Appellant will not be eligible for the input tax credit of the tax paid on the inward supply from the sub-contractors, we do not agree that this should be a ground for allowing the sub-contractors to avail the benefit of exemption. It is a well settled law that exemption notifications are to be interpreted strictly as to their eligibility. One cannot be influenced by extraneous factors while determining a person's eligibility to an exemption notification.
Therefore, on a strict interpretation of the entry Sl.No 3 and 3A, we hold that the supply of services by the sub-contractors to the Appellant is not eligible for the benefit of exemption under either SL.No 3 or 3A of Notification No 12/2017 CT (R) dated 28-06-2017 - decision of AAR upheld.
-
2020 (5) TMI 415
Levy of GST - activity of development and sale of land - Applicability of provision of Rule 31 in ascertaining the value of land and supply of service - challenge to AAR decision - HELD THAT:- In the instant case there are two activities involved, viz: development of land and sale of plots. The transaction relating to the sale of land is not a supply of either goods or service under GST (entry 5 of Schedule III of the CGST Act refers). This activity of sale of land cannot be considered as an 'exempt supply' for the reason that the activity is not at all a supply and hence the question exempting it under Section 11 of the Act does not arise. On the other hand, the activity of development of land is a supply in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act. A combination of two activities one of which is not a supply under GST cannot be said to be a composite supply - this contention of appellant cannot be agreed upon.
The landowner shall obtain all required licences, sanctions, consents, permissions, no-objections and such other orders as are required to procure the Sanctioned Plan. Further, in case the Appellant-Developer intends to modify the plans, the landowner shall obtain the required modifications to the sanctioned plan. The Appellant-Developer shall develop the project on the property subject to the obtaining of the sanctioned plan by the owners. Therefore, it is evident that the onus is on the landowner to comply with the provisions of Section 32 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act. It is the owner of the schedule property who agrees to transfer the ownership of the roads, drains, water supply mains, parks and open spaces, civic amenity areas to the Urban Development Authority. The Appellant-Developer has no role to play in obtaining the sanctions and in transfer of ownership. Therefore, this argument of the Appellant does not hold good.
While the Joint Development agreement is entered into for the two parties to jointly reap the benefits of the sale of the land to customers, there is a clear rendering of a service by the developer to the landowner in developing the land which belongs to the landowner. Therefore, the activity of developing the land is a supply of service by the Appellant.
The findings of the lower Authority on the question of taxability of the activity of development and sale of land and also the finding on the question relating to the value of supply is upheld - decision of AAR upheld.
............
|
9911796707
