Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the construction activity undertaken by the revisionist amounted to a works contract under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
Analysis: The construction agreements and allotment documents were examined along with the nature of the activity undertaken for the allottees. The definition of works contract under section 2(m) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was applied, and the factual finding recorded by the assessing authority and affirmed by the Tribunal was that the revisionist carried out construction on behalf of the allottees for consideration. That finding was not shown to be perverse or erroneous and, in revisional jurisdiction, did not call for interference.
Conclusion: The finding that the activity constituted a works contract was upheld and stood against the revisionist.
Final Conclusion: The revision was not accepted on the works contract issue, but the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the remaining valuation and purchase-related issues.
Ratio Decidendi: Construction undertaken pursuant to allotment and agreement for consideration falls within the statutory concept of works contract where the factual finding to that effect is supported by the record and is not shown to be perverse.