| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 2456 2009 SLD 2456 (2009) 311 ITR 212 |
Bombay High Court
WRIT PETITION No. 588 OF 1993 OCTOBER 24, 2007
F.I. REBELLO AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
WRIT PETITION No. 588 OF 1993 OCTOBER 24, 2007
F.I. REBELLO AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Hiten Rashmikant Mehta *
v.
Union of India
Law:
Section:
Section 269C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Acquisition of immovable properties - Proceedings for - Whether Chapter XX-A applies not only to transactions where a person has become a member of a society, but also to transactions where a person acquires right to a flat in a society, on account of his acquiring shares relating to a flat in society by entering into an agreement or arrangement in that behalf and to such transaction, Chapter XX-C cannot be applicable - Held, yes Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Purchase of immovable property by Central Government - Restrictions on transfer of immovable property - Whether rule 48L(2)(a), which provides that in respect of agreement of transfer entered into before 1-10-1986 (i.e., before Chapter XX-C came into force) to which Chapter XX-A is not applicable, statement in Form No. 37-I be filed within time stipulated therein, is in conformity and consistent with provisions of Act and, therefore, it is constitutionally valid - Held, yes Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Purchase of immovable property by Central Government - Order by appropriate authority - Whether where appropriate authority had not furnished particulars of sale instances relied upon in show-cause notice issued for acquiring petitioners' immovable property in spite of repeated requests by petitioners and it had also not given any reasons as to why sale instance relied upon by petitioners was not comparable, it could not have passed order of acquiring property in question - Held, yes FACTS The petitioners had obtained NOC from the society for transfer of the flat in their favour. Thereupon, on 30-8-1986, the petitioners entered into an agreement for purchase of the flat in question from the member for a consideration of Rs. 15,30,000. As per the agreement, out of the total consideration, the petitioners had to pay Rs. 6 lakhs to the member on or before the execution of the said agreement and the balance consideration of Rs. 9,30,000 would be paid on the date on which possession of the flat in question was handed over to the petitioners. Further, the five shares bearing distinctive Nos. 31…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492