BMC cannot disconnect water supply as punishment says HC
WATER IS A BASIC NECESSITY OF LIFE AND IS COVERED UNDER ONE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE
Allotment of flat without OC is illegal; The builder must get occupancy certificate on time. In case of any delay, the builder must compensate the buyer with rent for that period; Latest NCDRC Order….. to read more Click https://t.co/kPP0WNeblm
To implement procedure and practice for installing Mobile Towers on the terrace or to display advertisement board / hoarding on the building of the Co-operative Housing / Premises Societies:
India’s Highest Consumer Court Brings Relief To Thousands Of Home Buyers A 3-member bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that all buyers of a housing project will be made party to any case filed against the real estate developer by another buyer. A move that dramatically increases the scale of lawsuits filed against errant builders while benefiting thousands of home buyers across the country. ….to read more click http://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2016/10/indias-highest-consumer-court-brings.html
“Victims of RNA Corp.” OR Victims of Any Unscrupulous Builder, What are the options available for Home Buyer and Aggrieved Flat Owners in Redevelopment Project
How to File a Complaint against a Builder, What are the options available
Any citizen can file a case against a developer. There are several options and situations under which a property buyer can file a complaint. Types of complaints are:
2. Consumer case
3. Suit for Specific Performance of Contract
On the following grounds in which a property buyer can drag an incompetent property developer on violations/ breach of ground
Non-execution of relevant sale agreement despite having received a substantial advance amount
Non-issuance of copies of all relevant documents viz.; development agreement, power of attorney, sanctioned plan (by concerned Regional Authorities), specification of construction materials/design as per sanctioned plan and any other relevant documents
Charged higher than the agreed amount
No issuance of proper receipt(s) against the paid amount
Poor quality construction
Delivering of a house not complying to agreed specifications
No free parking space within the premises
Did not form a co-operative housing society and handed over to members
Non-provision of water storage tank
Non-provision of proper ventilation and light
Delayed possession beyond the stipulated time limit
Not obtaining completion certificate from the concerned registered (by the authorities) architect
Non-issuance of Occupancy Certificate at the time of delivery of respective flats/house to its occupants
Non-declaration of expenses against which the developer collected money
And many more…
Click Here for more
SCC – Supreme Court Cases – Pg. No. 440, a Land Mark Judgement :Nominee of Deceased Member is absolutely entitled for the Ownership by transfer, Co-op. Soc can’t challenge the right of Nominee a settled Law of the land.
No legal heirship, Court order or Succession Certi. or Letter of Admin.is reqd.
Pl. Circulate & take advantage, @ v v imp for all Society members and office bearers
The ITAT noted this compensation was towards the hardship which the flat owner would face owing to the redevelopment. It held such compensation to be in the nature of a “capital receipt“, which “is outside the scope of income that can be chargeable to tax“. In other words, such compensation cannot be subject to income-tax.
This landmark order, whi ch relates to the I-T implications for a flat owner, will help taxpayers facing similar litigation. Management committees of co-operative societies, especially in Mumbai, will also find it easier to persuade their members (flat owners) to agree to undertake redevelopment, as I-T-related anxieties will ease. However, the ITAT held that another sum of money rece ived by the flat owner for payment of rentals while the redevelopment work was ongoing would not be taxed only to the extent it was actually utilised for rent payments. Any surplus would be treated as `income from other sources’.It would be added to the taxable income of the flat owner and the applicable I-T slab rate would apply (for income above Rs 10 lakh, the current rate is 30% plus surcharge and cess).
Jitendra Kumar Soneja had received a sum of Rs 22 lakh as compensation from the redeveloper and also another sum of Rs 8.55 lakh for paying rent as he had to vacate his flat while the redevelopment work was ongoing. Both these amounts were credited to his bank account.
As he was unable to satisfactorily explain the reason for not disclosing this sum of Rs 30.55 lakh in his I-T returns for the concerned financial year 2006-07, the I-T officer treated it as `undisclosed income’ liable to I-T. Having lost the case at the Commissioner of I-T (Ap peals) level, Soneja appealed to the ITAT.
Soneja’s counsel submitted to the ITAT that Rs 22 lakh was received as compensation owing to the hardship caused to the taxpayer on account of redevelopment. It was received as a corpus fund, which was a capital receipt and was not taxable. The ITAT took note of this contention and the fact that the compensation relates to a flat, which is a capital asset.
The ITAT did not agree with the views of the I-T department that such compensation was the flatowner’s share in the profits earned by the redeveloper. “One has to see what is the nature of income in the hands of the receiver and not the payer (redeveloper),“ ITAT held.
Going a step further, ITAT stated that while the compensation was a capital receipt and not taxable, it would be reduced from the cost of acquisition of the flat. This would have a tax impact, in case the flat (or rather the redeveloped flat) was subsequently sold.
Capital gains, on which capital gains tax is levied, is the difference between the sale price and the cost of acquisition (or purchase price).If the cost of acquisition is lower, it would result in a higher capital gains base and thus a higher incidence of capital gains tax.
As Soneji had incurred a rent expenditure of only Rs 6.80 lakh as against Rs 8.55 lakh received for this purpose, the balance of Rs 1.75 lakh was held liable to I-T.