Hoarding on buildings now requires NOC from its top floor residents.

By Accommodation Times


A  Bombay high court division bench comprising of justice Mohit Shah and Justice Nitin Jamdar has ruled that any hoardings on top of the building will require the permission of top floor residents of the same building. The courts decision came after a gynecologist filled a PIL against illegal hoardings in the city. After this rule, even if all the residents of a building or members of the society agrees to put a hoarding, yet they are required to gain a no objection certificate(NOC) from the concerned affected person.

www.sevgairi.com

The court also made a note that if incase the building residents refuses to give a nod, they can pursue the BMC and file their objections. The civic body will consider it after it hears to the objections of the advertisers and the building residents. The people concerned are also compelled to comply with the rules and must have an endorsement of the deputy municipal commissioner, without this any hoarding licenses would not be granted or renewed in the city.

Transfer of government land is now easy: PM

By accommodation Times Bureau

On the very next day of the RBI announcement of unchanged rates that had an effect on the real
estate sector, prime minister MR. Manmohan Singh is likely to ease one more headache.i.e the
transfers of government land. The pm has approved the changes in the land transfer policy for
government owned land.

A ban has been imposed last year on transfer of land to any private entity except from one
government department to another department. The ruled stated that, under the government
land transfer policy any entity that needs land to implement projects will first has to take
cabinet-approval. In the process of securing cabinet-aprproval takes long time thus delaying the
projects.

The goal of this new introduced rule is to basically kickstart the infrastructural projects that
are crucial for the country growth and boost the sentiment for the industry players who are
somewhere not happy with the government rates policy.

PM has also relaxed norms for land transfer on lease or rent or license which has been
appraised by PPP(private public partnership) and were approved by the finance minister
butofcourse depending upon the value of the projects. PM has also allowed to use the
land of railways under the RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY according to the Railway
Amendment Act.

www.sevagiri.com

In a statement PM said, ‘’ this relaxation in the land transfer will only speed the private-public
partnership projects. All the PPP infrastructure projects-roads ,railways, ports, civil aviation
and metros have some element of land alienation as the projects is often built on government
owned land. The govt. continues to own the land which is leased or licensed out.

Delayed projects and delayed land acquisition have been often a complain of the players in the
real estate industry .

In all it’s a little of sugar splitting after a salt sprinkle.

552 new projects referred to MEoF for clearances

By Accommodation Times Bureau

Ministry of Environment and Forest (MEoF) have received 552 proposals for Environment permissions in and around Mumbai and Pune for Real Estate Development. Big names in the Real Estate industry have asked for the clearance and permission for Real Estate development work.

Though the process of clearances are on various stages like application, public hearing, environment assessment, apeals etc, these 552 big projetcs are likely to hit the Real Estate market very soon. Some of the projects have already started with their respective infrastructre work and securing the site with Patra boudaries and many have started the piling work also.

Many large projects and integrated townships are not going in for Environment Clearance and Permission on pretext that individual buildings or small sectors/ segments of land are been constructed. It will be a big issue after the completion of the building and occupants will have to seek the permission in place of builder as in the case of Occupancy Certificate (OC) and Building Completion Certificate (BCC).

In these 552 projects, large townships and commercial hubs are been planned. The list is available with Accommodation Times where big names were denied permission to some of the big projects they intend to announce near Dewali.

www.svegairi.com

Without any specific notification, Land within 8 kms of municipality limits deemed to be an ‘agricultural land’

It is not in dispute that the Central Government has not issued any notification in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(b). An agricultural land is not a capital asset; it becomes a capital asset if it is the land located under section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b). Section 2(14)(iii)(a) covers a situation when the subject agricultural land is located within the limits of municipal corporation, notified arewww.sevagiri.coma committee, town area committee town committee of cantonment committee and which has a population of not less than 10,000.

Section 2(14)(iii)(b) covers the situation where the subject land is not only located within the distance of 8 kms. from the local limits, which is covered by clause (a) to section 2(14)(iii), but also requires the fulfilment of the condition that the Central Government has issued a notification under this clause for the purpose of including the area up to 8 kms. from the municipal limits to render the land as a ‘Capital Asset’.  In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the subject land is not located within the limits of Municipal Corporation therefore, clause (a) to section 2(14)(iii) is not attracted.

However, though it is contended by revenue that it is located within 8 kms. within the municipal limits of City Municipal Corporation, in the absence of any notification issued under clause (b) to section 2(14)(iii) it cannot be looked in as a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(b) also and, therefore, though the Tribunal may not have spelt out the reason as to why the subject land cannot be considered as a ‘capital asset’ by giving the very reason the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is nevertheless the correct conclusion.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Commissioner of Income tax

v.

Madhukumar N. (HUF)

IT Appeal NO. 396 OF 2009

MARCH 29, 2012

UDGMENT

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. – In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] the revenue has questioned the correctness of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore “C Bench, Bangalore passed on 27.02.2009 in ITA/No. 1043(Bang)/2008.

2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the assessment year is 2005-06. The question is as to whether the agricultural land belonging to the family sold on 02.03.2005 for a total consideration of Rs. 52,00,000/- resulted in long term capital gain in a sum of Rs. 48,94,784/-.

3. The assessee claimed that the amount does not amount to capital gain as the sale was attributable to the agricultural land and not coming either within the limits of any municipality or within the distance of 8 kms, from any notified municipality or urban area.

4. This was the bone of contention between the assessee and the revenue and while the revenue took a stand that the subjected land was located within 8 kms,, of Dasarahalli City Municipal Council, The Tribunal chose to accept the version of the assessee placing reliance on the certificate issued by Dasanapura Gram Panchayath to the effect that the population of Adakemaranahalli village within whose limits the land was located was less than 10,000 and therefore opined that the subject land cannot be considered as one coming within the definition of capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act.

5. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the present appeal by the revenue.

6. Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants revenue has vehemently urged that the Tribunal has committed a mistake in choosing to rely upon a certificate issued by Dasanapura Gram Panchayath and ignoring the factum of the village being within 8 kms. limits of Dasarahalli City Municipal Council.

7. However, it is not in dispute that the Central Government has not issued any notification in terms of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act.

8. Mr. Arvind, learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act to contend that proposed Dasarahalli City Municipal Council is covered under Clause (a) of the Act i.e., lands within the limits of 8 kmts., from the boundary of the city municipal council etc.

9. An agricultural land in India is not a capital asset but becomes a capital asset if it is the land located under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act, Section 2(14) (iii) (a) of the Act covers a situation where the subject agricultural land is located within the limits of municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or cantonment committee and which has a population of not less than 10,000.

10. Section 2(14)(m)(b) of the Act covers the situation where the subject land is not only located within the distance of 8 kms from the local limits, which is covered by Clause (a) to section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, but also requires the fulfilment of the condition that the Central Government has issued a notification under this Clause for the purpose of including the area up to 8 kms, from the municipal limits, to render the land as a “Capital Asset.

11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the subject land is not located within the limits of Dasarahalli City Municipal Council therefore, Clause (a) to section 2(14][iii] of the Act is not attracted.

12. However, though it is contended that it is located within 8 knits,, within the municipal limits of Dasarahalli City Municipal Council in the absence of any notification issued under Clause (b) to section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, it cannot be looked in as a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act also and therefore though the Tribunal may not have spelt out the reason as to why the subject land cannot be considered as a ‘capital asset’ be giving this very reason, we find the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is nevertheless the correct conclusion.

13. Therefore, we find no need to interfere in this appeal.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

www.sevagriri.com


Source: accommodation times

One more hurdle for the builders to climb

By Accommodation Times Bureau
By Nimisha Gupta

With all the clearance formality already in existence, the all new and pending projects will now
has to go under one more clearance test.i.e environment clearance.

The SEAC 1(state level appraisal committee ) that has already approved the projects in overall
Maharashtra with 554 projects, the new formed SEAC 2 only for MMR(Mumbai metro region)
will mainly look after the Mumbai region. Our honorable CM Mr. Prithviraj Chauhan with
consent of minister of state (independent charge) for environment and forests Mr. Jayanthi
Natrajan proposed the the ideas of having to committee to regulate.

The new formed SEAC 2 will have members from IIT sectors, retired BMC officials, MHADA
officials and the deputy secretary which will on the direction from the central government nod
there head for projects with the built-up area above 20,000sqft. There are many construction
in the pipeline in regions of Thane, Raigad and Mumbai –suburbs that accords the clearance
certificates from the committee.

Some of the factors that will be considered while appraising the construction projects are total
built-up area, energy conservation measure, water requirement, rain water harvesting, green
area , sewage treatment plant, solid waste management and environment management plan.

Special General Body Meeting not needed to pass Redevelopment Process of the society

By Accommodation Times Bureau
As submitted by Advocate K K Ramani.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION


WRIT PETITION NO. 10285 OF 2009


Harsha Co­op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. .. Petitioners


Vs.
Kishandas S. Rajpal & Ors. .. Respondents


Mr. A. S. S. Murthy i/b Mr. A. P. Steenson i/b A. P. Steenson & Associates
for the Petitioners. Mr. N. N. Bhadarshete for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. R.
M. Patne AGP for Respondent No.3.


CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE


The petitioners are the co­operative society, several of its members and


the developers of the society premises. The respondents are father and son


who constitute one member of the society (respondent). The society passed


a resolution for development of its premises on 26.08.2008. This resolution


came to be passed pursuant a notice of that meeting given on 20.08.2008


which in turn came to be given in view of letter signed by 7 out of 12


members of the society setting out 8 issues relating to proper functioning of


the society which was required to be attended by the Chairman.


One of the matters on the Agenda of the Meeting mentioned in the


notice of the meeting was the “repair request all the members”. This was


inter alia discussed at the meeting. The resolution of the society shows that


the society building was in dilapidated condition and “beyond repairs”. The


members took a decision for the “redevelopment of the society building”. In


the said meeting the members discussed various offers of various developers


and builders such as Mohini Sheltors, Mayfair, sheth, Capital Square,


Radhakishan Construction. The members discussed various offers and


directed the committee members to investigate about short­listed developers


and take steps for redevelopment of the society.


It was contended by the respondent that passing of such a resolution is


illegal because under bye­ law No.97 the Special General Body Meeting


could not transact any business other than what was mentioned in the notice


A dispute therefore came to be filed for declaration that the resolution


was illegal and for grant of injunction restraining the society from acting


upon it. The injunction was refused by the Co­operative Court and granted


by the Co­operative Appellate Court, Mumbai.


It is contended on behalf of the respondents that since the agenda


was “repair” of the building premises, “redevelopment” of the premises and


granting the contract to Mohini Sheltors as developers of the society


building was outside the purview of the bye­law No.97.


A reading of the letters received by the Managing Committee setting


out the issues to be discussed, the notice of the meeting for that purpose and


the actual meeting held to discuss the issues which inter alia was the repair


of the society premises cannot show that the decision of the members upon


deliberation of the meeting that the society premises was beyond repairs and


must be redeveloped after investigation of the short listed developers is


outside the purview of the bye­law No.97.


For each of the specific steps to be taken in ultimately deciding the


repairs/redevelopment of the society building and premises, separate matters


on the agenda need not be shown and separate meetings need not be held.


The petitioner society is a small housing society consisting of 12


members. 11 out of those members have consistently agreed for


redevelopment since the meeting held on 26.08.2008. In that meeting they


required the investigation of the short­listed developers only. Pursuant to the


wishes of the members, are short listed developer was deemed fit to develop


It is not disputed that the society building premises is dilapidated. Yet


the respondents did not agree with the redevelopment of the society


premises by the short­listed developer. That, of course, was his privilege and


choice. However, since he was in an absolute minority, the wishes of the


society members in an absolute majority was required to be exceeded to.


10. It is argued on his behalf that by Government Notification issued under


Section 79­A of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act (the Act), a


registered architect on the panel of the Government was to be selected and


the procedure as shown therein required to be complied which is not done


and which vitiated decision of the society.


11. The reliance upon the Government Notification is itself misplaced.


When the members of the co­operative housing society which, under law of


co­operation, decides by a majority of 11:1 members that the society


premises be developed in a particular fashion by a particular developer, it


would be contrary to principles of democracy by which the society is


governed, for the sole dissenting member to interfere and require a


procedure, not required by the majority of the members to be followed


which would only consume time and be


Government Resolution would be required to be followed by the society


where the members are unable to come to any decision by a resolution of


12. The petitioners’ society having been injuncted from carrying out the


wishes of its members for the redevelopment of its society by the impugned


injunction order sought to hold a fresh election for its new managing


committee. The new committee came to be appointed by a fresh election on


25.09.2009. The new managing committee gave a new notice to hold a


Special General Meeting of the society on 30.10.2009. The respondent was


given notice. Members at that meeting agreed with the earlier decision.


Consequently the impugned order became infructuous. Nevertheless the


impugned order is challenged.


13. The respondent as a member would have a right to appear at the


meeting. Consequently though it was stated that he was given notice of the


meeting but failed to appear, the Court directed the society and all the


members once again meet and consider the aspect of the redevelopment of


the society premises on 7th March, 2010. It was mentioned to the Court that


the respondent had three other offers which were far superior and hence it


was considered in the fitness of things to reconsider of all these offers


14. The society meeting has been held yesterday. The respondent as well as


other members have attended. Four offers including the offer of Mohini


Sheltors together with certain amendments have been considered. The


respondents have produced a columnar statement of the four offers.


15. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that, a look at the columnar


statement shows that all of the respondent’s three offers are better than that


16. The columnar statement shows that all the three developers have


offered to construct only the residential premises of the society whereas


Mohini Sheltors has offered to construct commercial and residential


premises. It need hardly be stated that the commercial premises on the


ground floor of the building would itself enure for the benefit of the


17. The absolute advantage shown by way of absolute figure is in clause 8


of the columnar statement in which one of the offers of the respondent


shows the corpus which will be created at the rate of 7,500 per square foot


of the carpet area of the members. Advocate on behalf of the respondent


mentioned that the respondent would obtain Rs.23.33 lacs and the entire


society would obtain Rs.2.80 crores by that offer. To see the bonafides of


the offer, the respondent was directed to call upon his offerer to deposit


Rs.2.80 crores in the Court. Advocate on behalf of the respondent stated that


no such deposit can be made.


18. The other aspects of the offer in the columnar statement show


percentage amount which are not tangible to reconsider.


19. The members have decided once again by a majority of 10:2 to confirm


the offer of Mohini Sheltors. The Court is not, therefore, required to


interfere with the wishes of the majority of the members. The members do


not seek to act upon the resolution passed in the meeting dated 26.08.2008.


The impugned order has become infructuous. The injunction granted under


impugned order is set aside. The members have resolved to redevelop their


society building premises. The Court cannot interfere with such resolution.


The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above clarification as the


impugned order is infructuous.


respondent is taken on record.www.facebook.com

SEVAGIRI REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS ,

By Accommodation Times Bureau
Appellants are engaged in business of manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete (RMC). While supplying the goods they delivered it at the desired location on site by pumping of the RMC to the spot where it was required. Revenue has made out a case that this activity is covered under ‘Commercial & Industrial Construction Services’ and imposed service tax on the entire consideration received for RMC after allowing the abatement of 67% under Notification No.l/06-ST.

The submission of the appellant is that this activity is part of the sale transaction and it is not part of any construction services. The counsel submits that the same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of GMK Concrete Mixing (P.) Ltd. v. CST [Final Order No. ST/591/2011 (PB), dated 4-11-2011]. He also submits that the same issue was decided by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ACC Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [STRP No. 124 of 2011(Tax) and STRP Nos. 146-156 of 2011, dtd. 25.08.11.] The submission of the counsel is that since the issue has been decided by the Tribunal and a High Court, the matter may be decided without pre-deposit and the appeal itself may be decided on the basis of above decisions.

CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH

Ultratech Concrete

v.

Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi

FINAL ORDER NO. ST/A/476 of 2012-CUs

STAY ORDER NO. ST/S/714 OF 2012-cus

STAY APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2012

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2012

JUNE 12, 2012

ORDER

Mathew John, Technical Member – Appellants are engaged in business of manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete (RMC). While supplying the goods they delivered it at the desired location on site by pumping of the RMC to the spot where it was required. Revenue has made out a case that this activity is covered under ‘Commercial & Industrial Construction Services’ and imposed service tax on the entire consideration received for RMC after allowing the abatement of 67% under Notification No.l/06-ST.

2. The submission of the appellant is that this activity is part of the sale transaction and it is not part of any construction services. The counsel submits that the same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of GMK Concrete Mixing (P.) Ltd. v. CST [Final Order No. ST/591/2011 (PB), dated 4-11-2011]. He also submits that the same issue was decided by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ACC Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [STRP No. 124 of 2011(Tax) and STRP Nos. 146-156 of 2011, dtd. 25.08.11.] The submission of the counsel is that since the issue has been decided by the Tribunal and a High Court, the matter may be decided without pre-deposit and the appeal itself may be decided on the basis of above decisions.

3. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that though the matter appears to be covered by above two decisions, only stay petition may be allowed and Revenue may be given time to see whether there is any difference between the case already decided and this case.

4. Considered arguments of both the sides and we have studied the decisions and facts of the cases and we find that the facts are identical and there is nothing more to be decided in this appeal. Therefore after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, we have taken up the appeal itself and we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.