Sunday, February 12, 2012

Service tax on Construction Services- CBEC Clarification




Source :CBEC :Sunday, February 12, 2012
Circular No. 151/2/2012-ST

F.No.332/13 /2011-TRU

New Delhi, 10th February, 2012

Subject: Service tax on construction services — regarding.

Many issues have been referred by the field formations, in the recent past, seeking clarification regarding the levy and collection of service tax on construction services [clauses (zzq),(zzzh) of section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994], in the light of varying business models. Across the country, divergent business models and practices are being followed in the construction sector. Some of these business models and practices could be region specific.

2. From the issues referred by the field formations, important ones have been identified model wise, examined and clarified as follows:

2.1. Tripartite Business Model (Parties in the model: (i) landowner; (ii) builder or developer; and (iii) contractor who undertakes construction): Issue involved is regarding the liability to pay service tax on flats/houses agreed to be given by builder/developer to the land owner towards the land /development rights and to other buyers.

Clarification: Here two important transactions are identifiable: (a) sale of land by the landowner which is not a taxable service; and (b) construction service provided by the builder/developer. The builder/developer receives consideration for the construction service provided by him, from two categories of service receivers: (a) from landowner: in the form of land/development rights; and (b) from other buyers: normally in cash.

(A) Taxability of the construction service:

(i) For the period prior to 01/07/2010: construction service provided by the builder/developer will not be taxable, in terms of Board’s Circular No.108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009.

(ii) For the period after 01/07/2010, construction service provided by the builder/developer is taxable in case any part of the payment/development rights of the land was received by the builder/ developer before the issuance of completion certificate and the service tax would be required to be paid by builder/developers even for the flats given to the land owner.

(B) Valuation:

(i) Value, in the case of flats given to first category of service receiver, is determinable in terms of section 67(1)(iii) read with rule 3(a) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, as the consideration for these flats i.e., value of land / development rights in the land may not be ascertainable ordinarily. Accordingly, the value of these flats would be equal to the value of similar flats charged by the builder/developer from the second category of service receivers. In case the prices of flats/houses undergo a change over the period of sale (from the first sale of flat/house in the residential complex to the last sale of the flat/house), the value of similar flats as are sold nearer to the date on which land is being made available for construction should be used for arriving at the value for the purpose of tax. Service tax is liable to be paid by the builder/developer on the ‘construction service’ involved in the flats to be given to the land owner, at the time when the possession or right in the property of the said flats are transferred to the land owner by entering into a conveyance deed or similar instrument(eg. allotment letter).

(ii) Value, in the case of flats given to the second category of service receivers, shall be determined in terms of section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2.2 Redevelopment including slum rehabilitation projects: Generally in this model, land is owned by a society, comprising members of the society with each member entitled to his share by way of an apartment. When it becomes necessary after the lapse of a certain period, society or its flat owners may engage a builder/developer for undertaking re-construction. Society /individual flat owners give ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) or permission to the builder/developer, for re-construction. The builder/developer makes new flats with same or different carpet area for original owners of flats and additionally may also be involved in one or more of the following:

(i) construct some additional flats for sale to others;

(ii) arrange for rental accommodation or rent payments for society members/original owners for stay during the period of re-construction;

(iii) pay an additional amount to the original owners of flats in the society.

Clarification: Under this model, the builder/developer receives consideration for the construction service provided by him, from two categories of service receivers. First category is the society/members of the society, who transfer development rights over the land (including the permission for additional number of flats), to the builder/developer. The second category of service receivers consist of buyers of flats other than the society/members. Generally, they pay by cash.

(A) Taxability:

(i) Re-construction undertaken by a building society by directly engaging a builder/developer will not be chargeable to service tax as it is meant for the personal use of the society/its members. Construction of additional flats undertaken as part of the reconstruction, for sale to the second category of service receivers, will also not be a taxable service, during the period prior to 01/07/2010;

(ii) For the period after 01/07/2010, construction service provided by the builder/developer to second category of service receivers is taxable in case any payment is made to the builder/ developer before the issuance of completion certificate.

(B) Valuation:

Value, in the case of flats given to second category of service receivers, shall be determined in terms of section 67(1)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994.

2.3 Investment model: In this model, before the commencement of the project, the same is on offer to investors. Either a specified area of construction is earmarked or a flat of a specified area is allotted to the investors and as it happens in some places, additionally the investor may also be promised a fixed rate of interest. After a certain specified period an investor has the option either to exit from the project on receipt of the amount invested alongwith interest or he can re-sell the said allotment to another buyer or retain the flat for his own use.

Clarification: In this model, after 01/07/2010, investment amount shall be treated as consideration paid in advance for the construction service to be provided by the builder/developer to the investor and the said amount would be subject to service tax. If the investor decides to exit from the project at a later date, either before or after the issuance of completion certificate, the builder/developer would be entitled to take credit under rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994( to the extent he has refunded the original amount). If the builder/developer resells the flat before the issuance of completion certificate, again tax liability would arise.

2.4 Conversion Model: Conversion of any hitherto untaxed construction /complex or part thereof into a building or civil structure to be used for commerce or industry, after lapse of a period of time.

Clarification: Mere change in use of the building does not involve any taxable service, unless conversion falls within the meaning of commercial or industrial construction service.

2.5 Non requirement of completion certificate / where completion certificate is waived or not prescribed: In certain states, completion certificates have been waived or are considered as not required for certain specified types of buildings. Doubts have been raised, regarding levy of service tax on the construction service provided, in such situations.

Clarification: Where completion certificate is waived or is not prescribed for a specified type of building, the equivalent of completion certificate by whatever name called should be used as the dividing line between service and sale. In terms of the Service Tax (Removal of Difficulty) Order, 2010, dated 22/06/2010, authority competent to issue completion certificate includes an architect or chartered engineer or licensed surveyor.

2.6 Build- Operate – Transfer (BOT) Projects: Many variants of this model are being followed in different regions of the country, depending on the nature of the project. Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) is a popular variant. Generally under BOT model, Government or its agency, concessionaire (who may be a developer/builder himself or may be independent) and the users are the parties. Risk taking and sharing ability of the parties concerned is the essence of a BOT project. Government or its agency by an agreement transfers the ‘right to use’ and/or ‘right to develop’ for a period specified, usually thirty years or near about, to the concessionaire.

Clarification: Transactions involving taxable service take place usually at three different levels: firstly, between Government or its agency and the concessionaire; secondly, between concessionaire and the contractor and thirdly, between concessionaire and users, all in terms of specific agreements.

At the first level, Government or its agency transfers the right to use and/or develop the land, to the concessionaire, for a specific period, for construction of a building for furtherance of business or commerce (partly or wholly). Consideration for this taxable service may be in the nature of upfront lease amount or annual charges paid by the concessionaire to the Government or its agency. Here the Government or its agency is providing ‘renting of immovable property service’ (renting of vacant land to be used for furtherance of business or commerce) and in such cases the concessionaire becomes the service receiver.

In this model, though the concessionaire is undertaking construction of a building to be used wholly or partly for furtherance of business or commerce, on the land provided by the government or its agency for temporary use, he will not be treated as a service provider since such construction has been undertaken by him on his own account and he remains the owner of the building during the concession period.

At the second level, transaction can take place between a concessionaire and the contractor. Where the concessionaire himself does not have exposure to construction sector, he may engage a contractor for undertaking construction of a building on the land, in respect of which right to use has been obtained in his favour, from the Government or its agency. If the concessionaire is himself a builder/developer, this level of transaction may not arise. Where an independent contractor is engaged by a concessionaire for undertaking construction for him, then service tax is payable on the construction service provided by the contractor to the concessionaire.

At the third level, the concessionaire enters into agreement with several users for commercially exploiting the building developed/constructed by him, during the lease period. For example, the user may be paying a rent or premium on the sub-lease for temporary use of immovable property or part thereof, to the concessionaire. At this third level, concessionaire is the service provider and user of the building is the service receiver. The concessionaire may provide to the users, taxable services such as ‘renting of immovable property service’, ‘business support service’, ‘management, maintenance or repair service’, ‘sale of space for advertisement’, etc. Service tax is leviable on the taxable services provided by the concessionaire to the users.

There could be many variants of the BOT model explained above and implications of tax may differ. For example, at times it is possible that the concessionaire may outsource the management or commercial exploitation of the building developed/constructed by him, to another person and may receive a pre-determined amount as commission. Taxable service here will be business auxiliary service and service tax is leviable on the commission.

(A) Taxability:

(i) the service provided by the Government or its agency to the concessionaire is liable to service tax;

(ii) the construction services provided by the contractor to the concessionaire would be examined from the point of taxability as to whether the activity is not otherwise excluded;

(iii) the services provided by the concessionaire to the user of the facility are liable to service tax;

(B) Persons liable to pay tax:

Government or its agency and concessionaire are liable to pay tax on the services being provided by them. There could be several other persons liable to pay service tax, depending on the variant of the BOT model followed.

2.7 Joint Development Agreement Model: Under this model, land owner and builder/developer join hands and may either create a new entity or otherwise operate as an unincorporated association, on partnership /joint / collaboration basis, with mutuality of interest and to share common risk/profit together. The new entity undertakes construction on behalf of landowner and builder/developer.

Clarification: Circular 148/17/2011-ST dated 13/12/2011, particularly paragraphs 7, 8, 9 apply mutandis mutandis in this regard.

3. This Circular may be communicated to the field formations and service tax assessees, through Trade Notice/ Public Notice. Hindi version to follow.

(Samar Nanda)

Under Secretary, TRU

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Aamby Valley gets Sahara OFCD money




Source :BS :N Sundaresha Subramanian / Mumbai January 11, 2012, 0:21 IST





Two Sahara India realty firms in legal tussle with Sebi own significant equity in the group’s township project.


Two Sahara group firms have invested a significant portion of the money raised through the issue of Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCD) in Aamby Valley, a luxury township project developed by the group in Maharashtra.


Sahara India Real Estate Corp (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Invest Corp (SHICL) had a combined exposure of Rs 6,687 crore to the township project at the end of June 2010. This amounted to over a third of the sum raised through issue of OFCDs. On that date, these firms had raised Rs 16,169 crore between them by issue of OFCDs. SIRECL had dues of Rs 13,245 crore, including accrued interest of Rs 1,287 crore towards investors in OFCDs. SHICL had one of Rs 2,924 crore. Accrued interest was Rs 107 crore.


COST OF LUXURY
Investments in Aamby Valley
CompanyNumber (in million)Book value (Rs cr)Price per share (Rs)
EQUITY
SIRECL234.065328.22227
SHICL19.47553.05284
DEBENTURESNumber  
SHICL800.00806.0010,000,000
Total  6687.26 
Source: Annual reports 

In February 2010, media reports had talked of the Sahara group buying back a 49 per cent stake in Aamby Valley pledged with C Sivasankaran of the Sterling group. Business Standard could not independently confirm if the above investment by the two real estate firms resulted in an exit for Sivasankaran. An email questionnaire to the Sahara group spokesperson on Tuesday did not elicit any response.


SIRECL and SHICL have disclosed these investments in their annual reports for the year ended June 2010. Kolkata-based De & Bose were the statutory auditors of both. The companies recently filed the balance sheet and annual report with the registrar of companies. Business Standard accessed these filings from the website of the ministry of corporate affairs, which allows public viewing of these documents for a fee.


The Supreme Court, which is hearing the companies’ dispute with the market regulator over the legality of these debenture issues, had directed them to update their financials before proceeding with the hearing. The two firms are yet to file the audited financials for the year ended June 2011.


According to the financials for FY10, SIRECL had invested Rs 5,328 crore in 234 million equity shares of Aamby Valley as on June 30, 2010. It also had investments of Rs 512 crore in debt mutual funds and shareholdings in 70 subsidiaries. These investments were among the largest items on the balance sheet.


Under current assets, SIRECL had inventories worth Rs 7,847 crore and a cash/bank balance of Rs 1,393 crore. Loans and advances totalled Rs 1,470 crore. Of these, trade advances amounting to Rs 1,351 crore were given to subsidiaries. Ten subsidiaries, which were added to the subsidiaries’ list during the financial year, alone accounted for advances of Rs 1,300 crore.


These included Sahara Prime Realtors, Sahara Oceania Homes, Sahara Continental Estate, Sahara Prime Properties, Sahara City Development, Sahara Green Properties, Sahara New Dream Property, Sahara Milestones Estates, Sahara Oceania Property and Sahara Prime Dream Development. In addition to the money raised through debentures, the company made a preferential allotment of 90 million equity shares, raising Rs 90 crore.


Similarly, SHICL has an investment of Rs 553 crore in 19 million Aamby Valley shares. In addition to this equity investment, SHICL also held 800 convertible debentures of Aamby Valley worth Rs 806 crore. These debentures carried a coupon of nine per cent. SHICL also held four million preference shares worth Rs 204 crore in another group firm, Sahara Infrastructure and Housing Ltd. The promoters of SHICL infused Rs 882 crore through preferential allotment of equity shares.


For FY10, SHICL reported a net profit of Rs 169 crore. SIRECL reported a loss of Rs 68 crore.
SIRECL and SHICL are locked in a protracted legal battle with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi). In early 2010, Sebi, during the course of examining the prospectus of another group firm, Sahara Prime City, had discovered alleged irregularities in the issue of OFCDs by SIRECL and SHICL. According to Sebi, these issues violated public issue norms. In November 2010, the regulator banned the money-raising activity, triggering a long legal battle that has spanned courts and tribunals in Lucknow, Mumbai and Delhi.


The Sahara group contends the OFCDs were issued on a private placement basis. “During the period under review, certain information (on the basis of some alleged complaints received by Sebi, which despite repeated request have not been shared with the company), were called for by Sebi in the matter relating to the issuance of Optionally


Fully Convertible Debentures by the company on a private placement basis,” the SIRECL annual report said. “Sebi, after issuing summons to the company but without providing opportunity for hearing or waiting for clarifications from the Union of India through the ministry of corporate affairs, passed an ex parte order dated November 24, 2010 and posted the same on its website,” SIRECL said. The board of directors “are of the firm view that the company has not violated any provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, or any guidelines/ regulations issued under the Sebi Act, 1992.”

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Coimbatore retirement homes developer attracts FDI

The Club House at Soundaryam and Santhosham Comfort and Retirement Home at Pachapalayam, a project promoted by Covai Property Centre in Coimbatore. — K. Ananthan
The Club House at Soundaryam and Santhosham Comfort and Retirement

 Home at Pachapalayam, a project promoted by Covai Property Centre in Coimbatore.

Photo — K. Ananthan


Source :BL:Yoganarayaanan:3 jan 2012

At a time when FDI in retail has generated so much heat, a Coimbatore-based real estate developer is on the verge of clinching a multi million dollar FDI deal for his senior citizens projects in the country with a US investor this week.

He is also open to the idea of launching similar projects in the US aimed at the Indian diaspora as he is confident that the experience gained in India could be used to meet the needs of ethnic Indians settled in the US as it would help the Indians domiciled there to house their elderly relatives in easy proximity to them rather than being separated from them in India.

Without naming the US company with whom he will be inking a deal or revealing how much his collaborator would be investing, Col (Retd) A. Sridharan, Managing Director, Covai Property Centre (India) Private Ltd, Coimbatore, said the US investor would be bringing in ‘millions of dollars' for a stake in the new company.

It would offer the much-needed expertise in assisted care and for providing mental care which are not available widely in India.

Quality services

He said his company, in the six years of its existence, has built about 200 units for senior citizens, mostly in the Coimbatore region, which has provided quality residential facilities to about 350 people.
The idea was to expand this to about 2,500 dwelling units by 2015, taking care of about 4,000 residents and to 5,000/6,000 units that could provide accommodation to about 8,000-9,000 senior citizens by 2018.

The total outlay for this would be in the region of Rs 1,200 crore in the next six years.

Community projects

Beginning in 2005 with 48 villas in Coimbatore, the company has taken up retirement communities' projects across eight cities including Coimbatore, Puducherry, Chennai where work has commenced.
In 2012, it plans to roll out projects in Hyderabad, Chennai, Mysore and Pune (Talegaon) and plans are on the anvil for launching a project in Bangalore.

He said his company has tied up with a US-based company for Assisted Living and Mental Care (dementia and alzheimer), which would offer ‘not only world-class care but also knowledge and training to our people'.

These would be created not only in cities where Serene Retirement Communities are being set up but also in other cities as well and the details would be made public next week.

However, his core company Covai Property Centre, would continue to promote real estate projects.
He said the US collaborator would bring in ‘millions of dollars' as private equity as the company had already invested in nearly eight ongoing projects, the returns from which would be shared proportionately by the two partners.

He said the main advantage of his projects was that these were freehold, and not leasehold properties.
The buyers would have the advantage of a buy-back offered by the company which they could take advantage of when they want to move to assisted living facility or continuous care facility by monetising their investment.

Col. Sridharan said the US outfit was well known for its expertise in the areas of Assisted Living and Mental Care.

Both the privately owned companies have swapped certain equity. While his company would take care of the Independent Living facilities and services, the US partner would provide its expertise in training the staff for assisted care and alzheimer care.

He was open to the idea of extending his services to the US where a large number of Indians were living, separated from their parents living in India and who may be left in senior citizens' homes.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Lack of long-term funds a challenge for housing sector

Srinivas Acharya. Photo: Bijoy Ghosh


Source :The Hindu :Dec 26,2011



A series of hikes in key rates by the Reserve Bank of India has put the common man who aspires to own a home in a spot. What is in store for him?

What does the home mortgage business portent for housing finance firms? Srinivas Acharya, Managing Director, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, puts the issues in perspective in an interview to K. T. Jagannathan.

Excerpts.

How would you look at the year 2011?
Despite talks of slowdown, the year 2011 has been a good year for the home finance sector.

What were the big challenges faced by the sector?
Non-availability of long-term funds and frequent changes in interest rates were a couple of challenges the sector has had to grapple with this year.

The year saw also several rate hikes? What is your view on the current interest scenario?
Where do you see this moving in the medium-term? What impact will this have on the home buyers?
As the Reserve Bank of India itself has indicated, we do not expect any further rate increase unless there is any sudden adverse development not encountered so far.

You had indicated earlier this year that there is a lot of potential in Tier-2 and Tier-3 markets in the South and that there is still untapped potential. How different are those markets compared to the larger metros such as Chennai or Bangalore?
Is there any unique trend that you find in Tier-2 and Tier-3 towns in terms of home buyers and loan disbursement?
Availability of employable personnel in Tier-2 and Tier-3 towns will see offices spring up in these areas in a big way to avoid the metros. Besides, the cost of operations in the metros has gone up steeply and the infrastructure in the metros is not able to keep pace with the expanding horizons.
Better connectivity in terms of data and communication has made concentration in metros irrelevant.
Therefore, Tier-2 and Tier-3 towns will witness growth and together with this, there will be demand for housing.

What is the outlook for the home finance sector in the coming year? What will drive the growth in the sector next year?
Speaking for my company, the outlook continues to be bright. We believe there is still a lot of potential in the South.
We expect this market to continue to grow in the near- to medium-term.

What are the challenges going forward and opportunities for the sector?
Non-availability of long-term funds will continue to be a challenge. The housing demand in Tier-2 and Tier-3 towns will throw up a lot of opportunities.

What is the short-term solution to this long-term fund issue?
Excepting National Housing Bank (NHB), nobody is providing long-term funds for the housing finance firms. We don't have a mature debt market, where funds can be accessed for say a 10-year period. In the current environment, the long-term debt market simply does not exist. The government has to facilitate the development of the long-term debt market.

What is the solution?
Even NHB has now to raise funds from the market like everybody else. Earlier, it was able to raise capital gains bonds.
Now, it couldn't. May be the government could let NHB float long-term tax-free bonds. That could solve the problem to a certain extent.

What kind of initiatives / support do you expect from the industry body to drive faster growth in this sector?
There is no specific industry body for home finance industry. But, the initiatives taken by the NHB, our regulator, for creating a central registry for properties funded by housing finance companies (HFCs) and banks will go a long way in avoiding multiple funding against the same property.
State governments also need to provide some kind of authenticity to property registrations to avoid frauds. Besides, the laws on the anvil for the real estate sector will also bring in a lot of discipline among the builders and will lead to a greater level of comfort and confidence on the part of home-buyers and HFCs.

Specifically for your company, how has the growth been thus far this year? How do you see the next quarter? Also, what kind of growth do you envisage for the company over the next 12-18 months?
We crossed last full year's disbursements during the first nine months itself of the current year and have expanded our presence to 70 offices in India, including opening up newer locations outside the South. We do hope to reach our disbursement target of Rs.1,800 crore by March 31, 2012, which will represent a growth of 50 per cent over last year. In the next year (2012-13), we hope to grow by 40 per cent and settle down at a growth of 25 per cent once we reach annual disbursement of Rs.3,000 crore.

What is your view on the housing prices?
You haven't seen prices going up substantially. This has not happened in Chennai and Southern towns at least. Given the mindset of the buyers in the South, if you over-quote your price, it puts off a typically Chennai buyer. With Metro Rail and such things coming up in Chennai, I feel the population in Chennai will substantially grow and there will be increased demand.

Lack of new orders hits construction sector




Source :The Hindu :NEW DELHI, December 31, 2011



With the economy in a sluggish growth mode, the construction sector is faced with short-term challenges of increased debt levels, sluggishness in new order inflows, execution concerns surrounding their current order books and elongated working capital cycle, leading credit agency ICRA has said.
According to ICRA, while there has been an improvement in the quantum of new projects announced by the government sector in the second-half of 2011-12, this was countered by a sharp drop in new project announcements by the private sector in the same period, with the steepest decline in the period under reference. Resultant new order inflow for companies in the sector has been muted over the past two quarters.
The rating agency said despite having healthy unexecuted order books, almost all construction companies are plagued by a number of slow-moving orders due to issues related to land acquisition; securing requisite clearances; labour shortage and other sector-specific issues such as payment issues plaguing irrigation projects in Andhra Pradesh and issues faced by power projects.
The slowdown in the pace of execution can be gauged by the quantum of stalled projects, which has been steadily increasing since September 2010. 
As of September 2011, the quantum of stalled projects increased by 42 per cent on a year-on-year basis (15 per cent on quarter-on-quarter basis). Consequently, the year-on-year revenue growth of construction companies in the first and second quarters of 2011-12 has been the slowest as compared to the past few years. 
Labour shortages and government welfare schemes such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme have resulted in higher labour costs. Slower pace of execution and higher input and labour costs affected the operating profits of construction companies, ICRA said.