<?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>2015 (7) TMI 374 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261413</link>
    <description>Luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 applies on the aggregate plinth area of a multi-storeyed residential building where it remains under a single owner, because Section 2(k) contemplates aggregation for buildings with more than one floor and separate apartment-wise calculation is confined to cases falling within Explanation II to Section 2(e). Explanation II was treated as a beneficial provision for flats or apartments owned by different persons and jointly financed, and the court rejected a narrow reading that would produce an anomalous result. The expressions in Sections 2(e), 2(k), 2(l) and 5A were read harmoniously and purposively, and the apartment-wise functional unit approach was rejected. The revenue authority was directed to recompute the levy accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 15:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 374 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261413</link>
      <description>Luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 applies on the aggregate plinth area of a multi-storeyed residential building where it remains under a single owner, because Section 2(k) contemplates aggregation for buildings with more than one floor and separate apartment-wise calculation is confined to cases falling within Explanation II to Section 2(e). Explanation II was treated as a beneficial provision for flats or apartments owned by different persons and jointly financed, and the court rejected a narrow reading that would produce an anomalous result. The expressions in Sections 2(e), 2(k), 2(l) and 5A were read harmoniously and purposively, and the apartment-wise functional unit approach was rejected. The revenue authority was directed to recompute the levy accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>