Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2569 2008 SLD 2569 (2008) 306 ITR 225
Bombay High Court

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


Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

[2008] 306 ITR 225 (BOM.) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Chandrakant Kantilal Shah v. S. K. Lal F. I. REBELLO AND J. P. DEVADHAR, JJ. WRIT PETITION NO. 545 OF 1993 OCTOBER 29, 2007 Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Purchase of immovable property by central Government - Order by appropriate authority Order of purchase of property passed without determining the fair market value, cannot be said to be valid in law. Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Purchase of immovable property by central Government - Order by appropriate authority Where sale instances relied upon by appropriate authority for purpose of showing that flat in question was undervalued by 15 per cent or more than fair market value, were not found to be comparable, order passed for purchase of said flat by appropriate authority by relying upon aforesaid sale instances could not be said to be justified. Where the appropriate authority concluded that the flat in question was undervalued by more than 15 per cent of the fair market value by relying on six sale instances set out therein. Held that the petitioners had specifically stated that the sale instances referred to in the show cause notice were not comparable because the said flats were situated in prestigious and posh building with unrestricted sea view and the flats in those buildings were occupied by high profile personalities like film stars, industrialists, etc., whereas the flat in question was situated in a building occupied by higher middle class people. It was further submitted that the flat in question was situated on the ground floor without any sea view and even the building was not well kept, whereas the sale instances relied upon by the appropriate authority were situated in well maintained buildings. It was further submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the appropriate authority had additional amenity such as spacious compound, land scape garden, swimming pool, ample car parking place and very well planned modern flats, which were not there in the building in which the flat in question is situated. All these factors had not been considered in the impugned order. It was only after considering the merits and demerits…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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