Skip to main content

Owners can pay property tax under old regime: Bombay high court

Providing relief to property tax payers, the Bombay high court, in an interim order, has directed some property owners to go by the old regime and to pay 25% of the differential amount.

A bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sanklecha in October admitted a petition filed by Atash Behrams, Agiaries and Religious Institutions Welfare Society, which challenged the validity of the new property tax structure introduced earlier this year. Under the new system, the tax is calculated on the basis of the capital value of a property, and the age of a building, its location and use are taken into account. Experts contested the new "flawed" system could push up the tax by 300% or more.

The BMC also withdrewexemptions for charitable institutions. Bombay Hospital, a charitable institution, was the first to assail the hike in court, challenging the system and a Rs 2-crore bill for 2010 to 2013.

Property tax under the old regime was calculated according to the rateable value of a building, based on the expected reasonable rent it could attract. The Bombay Hospital and Atash Behrams petitions led to a slew of other petitions being filed in the HC. Property Owners Association, the Parsi Punchayat Funds and Properties, The Foundation for Medical Research, Mota Mandir Trust, the Indian Hotels Co and a huge bunch of almost 40 other pleas flooded the HC. They all challenged the new property tax structure "unconstitutional, exorbitant and confiscatory".

On December 23, the HC directed the state once again to file its reply. The BMC said it would file one by January 16.The HC adjourned the matter to January 29 but directed the petitioners to pay municipal taxes at the pre-amended rates and also the additional tax at 25% of the differential tax between the tax payable under the old and new regime.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Owners-can-pay-property-tax-under-old-regime-Bombay-high-court/articleshow/28163534.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more