| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1986 SLG 1632 1986 SLD 1632 (1986) 159 ITR 726 |
Karnataka High Court
IT APPEAL Nos. 9 TO 13 OF 1976 FEBRUARY 27, 1985
K.S. PUTTASWAMY AND N.R. KUDOOR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IT APPEAL Nos. 9 TO 13 OF 1976 FEBRUARY 27, 1985
K.S. PUTTASWAMY AND N.R. KUDOOR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Subbas Malharirao Kachure
v.
Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
Law:
Section:
Section 269F(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Acquisition of immovable properties - Hearing of objections - IAC acquired property in question situated at 'B' area under section 269F(6) holding that its fair market value exceeded apparent consideration by more than 25 per cent - Though before Tribunal as well as IAC, appellants had relied on sales of properties recorded at or about same time in 'L' area which was a more important commercial and residential area of city reported by same departmental valuer, still Tribunal and IAC ignored same on sole ground that sales effected in locality 'B' itself were available - Whether Tribunal was not justified in taking said view and, therefore, matter was to be referred back to IAC for fresh determination - Held, yes Facts The transferors sold the impugned property situated at 'B' area under a registered instrument to the transferees. The IAC, however, was of the opinion that the fair market value of the said property exceeded the apparent consideration by more than 25 per cent. He, therefore, after issuing notices under section 269D, directed the acquisition of the said property under section 269F(6). On appeal, the Tribunal also upheld the IAC's order. Before the Tribunal as well as the IAC, the appellants had relied on sales of properties recorded at or about the time of sale in 'L' area which was a more important commercial and residential area than B reported by the very departmental valuer. But the Tribunal and the IAC ignored the same on the sole ground that details of sales effected in the locality 'B' itself was available. On appeal: Held It was clear, in the present case, that 'L' area was one of the very important commercial and residential areas of the city and the locality where the property was situated, namely 'B', area was not as important as 'L' area. Therefore, the transactions of sales recorded in 'L' area at or about the time of sale, would be relevant and had to be taken into consideration in determining the fair market value of the property under consideration. The sale transactions in a more important and prominent locality of the same city would undoubtedly be relevant and cannot be ignored at all…
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