| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 2209 2000 SLD 2209 (2000) 82 TAX 571 (2000) 242 ITR 597 |
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1415-16 OF 2000 WITH TRANSFER CASE Nos. 22 AND 23 OF 1998 FEBRUARY 17, 2000
S.B. MAJMUDAR, D.P. MOHAPATRA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1415-16 OF 2000 WITH TRANSFER CASE Nos. 22 AND 23 OF 1998 FEBRUARY 17, 2000
S.B. MAJMUDAR, D.P. MOHAPATRA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
K.V. Shivakumar
VS
Appropriate Authority
Law:
Section:
Sections 269UD and 269UE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Purchase of immovable property by Central Government - Order of - Judgment of High Court upholding original order passed under section 269UD was set aside by Supreme Court in view of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530/[1992] 65 Taxman 440 - Thereafter, appropriate authority gave opportunity of hearing to parties and passed order purchasing property reiterating reasons given in original order - No separate order under section 269UD(2) was passed since property already vested in Central Government consequent to original order - Appellants case was that on setting aside of original order by Supreme Court property revested in vender and appropriate authority should have started acquisition proceedings afresh and as such, order in question was vitiated - Whether, where Supreme Court in its order neither directed de novo proceedings nor issued any direction to start proceedings from any anterior stage, no exception could be taken to procedure followed by appropriate authority and he was justified in issuing fresh notice of hearing to parties and disposing of matter afresh - Held, yes - Whether when property had already vested in Central Government, that position remained unaltered subject to fresh order to be passed by appropriate authority - Held, yes Section 269UG of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Purchase of immovable property by Central Government - Payment of purchase consideration - Appropriate authority discounted apparent consideration and adjusted tax dues from one of trustees of transferor-trust - Appellant-transferees case was that dis-counting and adjustments were illegal and apparent consideration having been not paid in terms of statutory provisions, purchase order stood abrogated - Whether when transferor raised no objection against discounted value or deduction made and on receipt of amount delivered possession of property, it could not be said that Central Government had failed to tender or deposit whole or any part of amount of consideration required to be tendered or deposited under section 269UG which entailed consequence of abrogation of purchase order and revestment of property inβ¦
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