<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (10) TMI 565 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163242</link>
    <description>Development charges collected for roads, drainage, club house, street lighting and utility lines in a residential layout formed part of the sale consideration for plots and were taxable under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The contention that only an easementary right was provided was rejected because the concurrent factual findings showed a taxable transfer within the statutory definition of sale. A larger-bench reference was not required merely because an earlier contrary view existed, as the regulation&#039;s conditions for such reference were not satisfied. The revision petition therefore failed and the tax demand and concurrent orders were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2014 20:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 565 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163242</link>
      <description>Development charges collected for roads, drainage, club house, street lighting and utility lines in a residential layout formed part of the sale consideration for plots and were taxable under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The contention that only an easementary right was provided was rejected because the concurrent factual findings showed a taxable transfer within the statutory definition of sale. A larger-bench reference was not required merely because an earlier contrary view existed, as the regulation&#039;s conditions for such reference were not satisfied. The revision petition therefore failed and the tax demand and concurrent orders were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>