E. request and obtain, on behalf of the Vendors, the certificate of development or occupancy of the buildings, including partial occupancy from time to time with respect to rental housing; and with all the rights to which buyers can legally be entitled to ownership of this property. (xxix) In addition, in the SCN, it is alleged that DCPC transferred the rural development rights to other persons/owners/developers at 31.03.2016 for a value of USD 1572.96.65,544/-, but did not pay a service tax (including Education Cess and Swachh Bharat Cess for an amount of 208,22,50,50,524 USD/- But in order-in-0riginal Para-No. There are simply not enough local, government and federal conservation funds to protect all countries, and the relatively low funding that exists is often at risk. Unlike conservation techniques, which rely exclusively on a low public dollar, TDR cleans up the land by tapping into the huge amounts of private capital invested in development projects. (xxx) In 5.2 of the opinion on the case, it is alleged that DLF would provide funds to DLF for the acquisition of the development rights of landowners. DCPC acquired development rights from landowners and transferred these development rights to DLF without any added value. The amount paid to landowners for the acquisition of development rights would be adjusted to reflect DLF`s ad hoc resources. (xvi) In the above definition, it is clearly stated that the property includes not only „land“ but also „country-derived“ benefits. Second, the question arises as to whether the transfer of operating rights is an advantage derived from the land to be covered by „real estate“.
The term „country advantage“ was interpreted in the following cases:-vi) The applicant`s annual accounts do not say that the operating rights were transferred by the applicant to M/s. DLF Limited or the annual account of M/s DLF say so. In addition, the independent CA certificate of 30.4.2018 certified that the complainant had not purchased the land or acquired the „development rights“. In addition, the above certificate states that the complainant did not transfer „development rights“ to DLF AG or its employees. viii) It is therefore clear that, with the exception of 2012, none of the following years, d. As a result, there was no sale of development rights, as shown in the complainant`s audited balance sheet and earnings account, and there is therefore no doubt that there was no sale of „development rights“ by the complainant for the aforementioned period. (viii) It is true that the business development agreement of 02.08.2006 allows the applicant to pay the amount to various companies that acquire the land while acquiring development rights of those lands to the complainant. The previous agreement of 02.08.2006 requires the complainant to make available to DLF or her candidate all development rights obtained by the complainant. This agreement does not allow the complainant to surrender the specified lands, since after the complainant acquired the rights to the operation, DLF became the owner of those rights under the previous agreement of 02.08.2006.