GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 95 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2016 (2) TMI 95 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en unfettered powers to grant any such relief which 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is a builder and civil works contractor, carrying 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 chal .....

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 the said order, the first appellate authority 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s legally justified in holding that land cost at 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 appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e relevant tax periods, was at 45% towards land 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 D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

persisted and did not file any revised return 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 revise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Advanced Search


Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

20-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

19-7-2017 IT

19-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

21-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

20-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

More Circulars



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version