Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Nandi Constructions Versus The State of Karnataka

2016 (2) TMI 95 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Exclusion of cost of land from the Sales Consideration / Value of the Works Contract - The assessing authority did not accept the land cost at 45%, but instead assessed it at 40% and assessed the tax. The assessee challenged the assessment order by filing the appeals, where it claimed the land cost to be 50% of the sale consideration, instead of 45% as had been claimed in the returns. - Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT)

Held that:- according to the petitioner, the claim is ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hich may not even have been claimed by the assessee in its returns. The Act provides for filing a revised return under Section 35(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

If the assessee fails to avail the benefit of filing revised return, then it is only the return which is filed, which has to be considered by the assessing officer or other authorities and nothing more than what is claimed in the return that can be granted by the authorities in favour of the assessee. - Decide .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng on the business of construction and sale of apartments. For the relevant tax periods, the assessee had sold some apartments, for which it had disclosed the sale consideration, out of which the cost of the land was disclosed in the returns at 45% and consequently paid tax on the sale consideration minus the land cost. The assessing authority did not accept the land cost at 45%, but instead assessed it at 40% and assessed the tax. The assessee challenged the assessment order by filing the appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Infinite Builders and Developers, Bangalore vs. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone II, Bangalore, reported in 2013 (76) Kar. L.J 390. Challenging the said order, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal claiming the land cost be allowed at 50% of the sale consideration. The appeals have been dismissed by a common reasoned order, which is under challenge in these revision petitions. 4. We h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t 50% that is not claimed in the returns cannot be considered in view of the decisions of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Centum Industries Pvt. Ltd., and Infinite Builders & Developers vs. Additional CCT., Zone II, Bangalore? b) Whether appellate Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the land cost allowed by the first appellate authority at 45% of the contract receipts, even after noticing the finding of the first appellate authority that land cost as per registered s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cost. Though Assessing Officer allowed only 40%, the first appellate authority granted the benefit of 45% towards land cost. The question now to be decided is whether unless a claim is made by the assessee in its return (and without the same being revised or modified by filing a revised return), any benefit beyond the benefit claimed in the return can be considered and allowed by the authorities. 7. In our view the answer would be a clear no. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Infi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or anything at all even after inspection, notice etc. In this view of the matter, there was nothing at all before the Assessing Authority to provide any input tax deduction in favour of the assessee for the entire period from April 2005 to March 2006. So it is urged by the appellant/assessee that even long after the expiry of the period in which the revised return could have been filed, the fact remains that there is no response by filing any revised returns. In such a position, we are of the vi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version