(b) the agreement only gave Woodfield the opportunity to recover its administrative costs; and (ix) It is alleged that the abovementioned agreement is futuristic in nature and that the applicant has effectively transferred the development rights to DLF and that the service tax can only be paid if development rights are actually transferred in the future. The annual accounts show the practice of transferring the development right acquired by DCPC. The examination of DCPC`s balance sheet for the year 2014-15 shows that the development rights held by DCPC are included in the list of «stocks» valued on 31.03.2015 with ₹ 651.53 crores and on 31.03.2014 with ₹ 1311.90 Crores. This shows a downward trend in development rights stocks, indicating that some development rights have been transferred from DCPC to DLF. (i) For the period from 1.07.2012 to 31.03.2016 (significant demand is greater than the normal limitation period), a Cause Notice show was published on 16.11.2016; in order to increase the demand of ₹ 208,22,50,224/- to the allegations that there has been a transfer of development rights by different companies (which own land) to the complainant, and that the applicant has transferred the development rights to M/s. DLF Limited and/or its related or external parties, as well as to the waiver of development rights. Since development agreements are commercial, the key to developing an effective development agreement is to ensure that it reflects the commercial requirements of the parties and does not accidentally trigger the application of laws and taxes that compromise the viability of the project. (xix) The development agreement of 5.12.2006 stipulates that there would be a transfer of development rights in the future and that the developer was authorised to carry out the development activities in accordance with clause 2.2 of the development contract, the developer being allowed to enter the land intended for the carrying out of development activities. Once the development activities are carried out, the deed of sale is executed between the three parties, namely the landowners, developers and buyers, under which the ownership of the undivided part of the land is transferred from time to time to the different Vendees / Buyers when the deed of transfer / deed of sale is executed in the future. d. conclude, in its own name, contracts for the sale of residential units, dwellings, rental houses of the building in question, at a price and on such terms and conditions as the purchasers may deem appropriate; (i) DLF would provide funds to DCPC for the acquisition of landowners` development rights. (ix) The Ministry expects that: that the total amount of DCS 1424.83 is nothing more than the value of the «development rights» and that, therefore, the service tax must be paid on the full advance of Crores 1424.83, which was awarded by DLF Ltd to the applicant and the complainant to the landowners, and no paise was retained by the applicant.
Indeed, the aforementioned amount is not a consideration for the purchase of development rights, but only a repayable performance guarantee. The Commissioner of State Revenue found that the land transfer tax under the Duties Act 2000 (Vic) was the sum of the sums to be paid by Lend Lease to VicUrban under the development contract. Lend Lease objected to taxation and argued that the consideration for the transfer should be only the amount stated in the contract for the purchase of the land. The argument put forward by Lend Lease was that the amounts that could be said to be paid as Lend Lease`s contribution to the costs of the development work carried out or executed by VicUrban and the amounts that were to be paid as a percentage of the sums that Lend Lease would realize on the sale of the land were not part of the consideration for the transfer3 . . .