TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... object of ultimately transferring it to prospective buyers. The assessee has also entered into a contract for transfer of constructed flats/buildings, and various amount from the allottees have been received. The department has treated raising of construction by the revisionist as amounting to a works contract, and in respect of goods utilized for construction of flats, the assessee has been held liable to payment of tax. The department as well as the Tribunal for the purposes of coming to such conclusion have relied upon judment of the Apex Court in K. Raheja Development Corporation Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2005 (5) SCC 162, as well as judgment in M/S. Larsen and Toubro Limited and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another, re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it. It is also stated that by virtue of law laid down by the Apex Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2012 (1) SCC 656, it is settled that transfer of immovable property can only be by way of registered transfer deed. It is stated that such aspects have clearly been omitted from consideration by Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that facts and circumstances relating to the transaction between the parties have not been given due consideration by the Tribunal, and there is an apparent failure on part of Tribunal to deal with issues raised and pressed before it, which renders the order unsustainable. Learned counsel submits that Tribunal is the highest au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agraph deals with payment of higher tax on account of alleged profits to be earned on account of transfer of such constructions. In the last paragraph, the Tribunal holds that there was no contract for sale of Earth, and therefore, levy of tax on such count has been held to be bad. 6. The facts, which have given rise to passing of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Raheja Development Corporation (supra), have been noticed in paragraph-2 of the judgment, which reads as under:- "2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The Appellants carry on the business of real estate development and allied contracts. They are having their Office at Bangalore. They enter into development Agreements with owners of la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstruction, no right is created in prospective purchaser either over the land or the constructions. Various clauses of the agreement entered into by the builder with the allottee were referred to before the Tribunal. This Court finds that the Tribunal has not examined to any of the clauses of agreement, nor the nature of transaction itself has been commented upon, in order to return a finding that a works contract had come into existence. The Tribunal being the highest Court of fact was expected to have examined the nature of transaction itself, only after analyzing the clauses of agreement entered into between the assessee and prospective allottee, a finding of works contract could have been returned. It is to be noticed that there existed....