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 refund claim was liable to be rejected on the ground that the construction was of a residential complex and not of a single residential house entitled to exemption.
Analysis: The appellant's purchase and construction arrangement showed a separate agreement for construction of an individual house with separate approval from the local authority. The factual matrix did not satisfy the conditions required to treat the project as a residential complex. The common facilities such as parks and roads had been relinquished to the Government, and therefore could not be treated as common property of the owner so as to bring the project within the expression residential complex. The case was covered by the earlier Tribunal view on identical facts.
Conclusion: The refund claim could not be denied on the ground that the project was a residential complex, and the rejection of refund was not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee obtained the consequential relief flowing from the setting aside of the rejection order.
Ratio Decidendi: A construction undertaken under a separate agreement for an individual house, where the statutory conditions of a residential complex are not fulfilled and the so-called common areas have been relinquished to the Government, does not fall within the disqualifying category of residential complex.