1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court upholds luxury tax assessment on entire building under Kerala Building Tax Act</h1> The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the levy of luxury tax on a two-storied building, upholding the assessment of luxury tax on the entire ... - Issues:The judgment involves the challenge to the levy of luxury tax u/s 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 on a two-storied building owned by petitioners. The main issue is whether the ground and first floors of the building should be assessed separately.Comprehensive Details:1. The petitioners contended that the ground and first floors of the building are owned separately by them and should be assessed as distinct units. They argued that the building should have been assessed separately based on their individual ownership and contributions to construction.2. Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act defines 'building' and provides that where a building consists of different apartments owned by different persons, each apartment shall be deemed a separate building if the cost of construction was met jointly by all owners. In this case, the petitioners failed to provide evidence that the cost of construction was met jointly.3. The appellate and revisional authorities rejected the petitioners' claims due to the lack of evidence showing joint contribution to the construction costs. The decision was based on the absence of proof that the cost of construction was shared by the owners of the building.4. The petitioners relied on exhibit P1 agreement between the parties, which outlined that each owner would contribute to the cost of construction of their respective portion of the building. However, this agreement did not establish that the overall cost of construction was shared jointly by all owners, as required by the law for separate assessment.5. Since the petitioners failed to prove the joint contribution to the construction costs as per Explanation 2 of section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, the assessment of luxury tax on the entire building was upheld. The court found that the petitioners did not meet the legal requirements for separate assessment of the ground and first floors.Conclusion:The writ petition challenging the levy of luxury tax on the two-storied building was dismissed by the court, upholding the assessment of luxury tax on the entire building as per the Kerala Building Tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
