2012 (1) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT
RAGHBIR SINGH Versus APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY IT. DEPTT.
Preemptive purchase by the Central Government u/s 269 UD (1) - apparent consideration appeared to be understated - petitioner(transferee) argued for rebate to be allowed in the value of property determined by appropriate authority on following grounds - Appropriate authority, has ignored the encumbrances, suits and disputes with regard to the property Held that - Disputes with third party could have a depressing effect on the fair market value of the property. In present case disputes and suits were between the transferors and the petitioner which were ultimately settled , and not between tran ....... - .......
2010 (12) TMI 7 - Supreme Court of India
M/s. GOVIND IMPEX (P) LTD. & ORS Versus INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
Prosecution - validation of provisions of Chapter XXC - Compulsory purchase by central government - section 269UA - extension of lease period - Held that - On a plain reading of the explanation aforesaid it is evident that a lease which provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term it shall be deemed to be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the period for which the lease is granted and period of extension counted together makes it more than twelve years. - The terms of lease are not to be interpreted following strict rules of construction. ....... - .......
2010 (3) TMI 468 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Banumathi Versus Income-tax Officer
Offences and prosecution- Purchase of immovable property by Central Government. Failure to file Form 37-I. purchase of immovable property by individual and his wife and sale thereof by individual deed. Prosecution launched against an individual and his wife. Held that- property were purchased individually by accused 1 and 2 and they were sold by them under the two independent sale deeds. When the purchase was of two independent units and two distinct persons holding them in their in ....... - .......
2009 (12) TMI 112 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
SOFFIA SOFTWARE LTD. AND ANOTHER Versus MRS. KALPAGAM BHASKARAN. MEMBER I. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
Offences under sections 276AB read with 269UC and 269UL(2) Purchase of immovable property by central government property owned as a single unit - Learned special public prosecutor submitted that the property sold by the accused is a single unit property and to avoid the legal obligation, the accused sold the same by splitting the same into two units under two different sale deeds in order to defeat the provisions contained in section 26915C of the Act and to avoid filing Form No. 37-I. Transfer of equal undivided shares by two sale deeds it would amount to violation of section 269UC Held that ....... - .......
2009 (12) TMI 111 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. BABA SHANKAR Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER
Offences under sections 276AB read with 269UC and 269UL(2) purchase of immovable property by central government individual agreement entered into by husband and wife in respect of their individual shares - In the considered view the immovable property dealt with by accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been purchased by them under two different sale deeds and the same has been shown in their respective income-tax returns. Here, individual agreements have been entered into by accused Nos. 1 and 2 with accused No. 3 in respect of their individual shares. Therefore, the pr ....... - .......
2009 (8) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Satish Balan & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.
Compulsory Acquisition of property Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - . Assessee contended that he acquisition is to be effected only when there is a significant undervaluation in the agreement of sale with a view to evade tax and an order of compulsory purchase of immovable property can be made only if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the apparent consideration, as shown in the agreement of sale, was less than the fair market value by 15 or more Department contended that Since there were no sale instances of open land or land with a small structure constructed thereon, the s ....... - .......
2007 (6) TMI 153 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
DHIRAJLAL CHHOTALAL PAREKH AND ANOTHER Versus APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
Order of dept. u/s 269UD(1) passed pursuant to any defective SCN is illegal violation of natural justice as particulars relied upon by revenue never furnished to petitioner hence order passed of purchase of impugned immovable property by central govt. on account of under valuation is set aside
2007 (3) TMI 192 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
KT VENKATESAN AND ANOTHER Versus APPOPRIATE AUTHORITY
Purchase of immovable property by central govt. on account of undervaluation is based on facts so petition of assessee rejected time limit for filing agreement of transfer of property starts from date of signing of agreement not the time of transfer mentioned in agreement Sec 269UC(1)
2003 (9) TMI 8 - DELHI High Court
Aerens Entertainment Zone Ltd. And Others Versus Joint Commissioner Of Income-tax And Others.
Offence - The quashing of criminal complaint under section 276AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is being sought on the ground that the petitioners were not liable to comply with the provisions of section 269UC of the Act and the complainant was also not competent to file the complaint - The petition is disposed of with a directio ....... - .......
2003 (5) TMI 25 - DELHI High Court
KL. Suneja And Another Versus Union of India And Others.
Petitioners pray for quashing of an order passed by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C and a direction to the said authority to grant no objection certificate under section 269UL(3) - On a statement being filed under section 269UC of the Act, the appropriate authority has two options available to it, namely, (i) either to purchase a property by exercising the right of preemptive purchase by making an order under section 269UD; or (ii) if it is not inclined to purchase the property, to issue a no objection certificate . It has no third option Thus ....... - .......
2002 (7) TMI 84 - MADRAS High Court
R. Vijayalakshmi Versus Appu Hotels Ltd. And Others.
Offences And Prosecution, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government - appellant submitted that the trial court has come to the conclusion that there was no transfer of immovable property and hence acquitted the accused. The trial court has not considered the terms of the agreement properly and it has not considered the provisions of section 269UA, clauses (f) and (e) and also sections 269UC and 269C. - This is a case where the trial court has come to a decision based on the records. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse. Even if there is a possib ....... - .......
2001 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court
Union of India And Another Versus Chiranji Estates Pvt. Ltd And Another
Order for pre-emptive purchase by central government - Two valuation reports obtained before the issue of show-cause notice did not indicate any undervaluation - moreover, the instance of property No. A-32 relied upon by the parties was rejected on irrelevant consideration - view taken by the High Court cannot be faulted with at all and the basis indicat ....... - .......
2001 (7) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court
Sona Builders Versus Union of India And Others
No copy of any document relating to the sale instance was furnished by the Appropriate Authority to the appellant along with the notice - gross breach of the principles of natural justice because adequate opportunity to meet the case was not given to the appellant- Having regard to the statutory limit within which the Appropriate Authority has to act and his ....... - .......
2001 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court
Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax And Others Versus Express Towers P. Ltd. And Others
Fair market value of the property in question was over the apparent consideration disclosed by 28.5 - On that basis Appropriate Authority proceeded to acquire the property for the UOI, rejecting the explanation offered by the transferor - value, of the property either with reference to the apparent consideration or the f.m.v. determined by the Appropriate Authority is ....... - .......
2001 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court
Appropriate Authority And Another Versus Ms. Shashi Sehgal And Others
According to the appropriate authority, the fair market value with reference to the first property was worked out at Rs. 35 lakhs and with reference to the other property at Rs. 42 lakhs- Whether, order of pre emptive purchase was vitiated - When relevant factors had been ignored by the appropriate authority, necessarily we find ....... - .......