| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 2504 2008 SLD 2504 (2008) 305 ITR 353 |
Bombay High Court
F. I. REBELLO AND, J. P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
F. I. REBELLO AND, J. P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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] 305 ITR 353 (BOM.) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Shrikrishan Jindal v. S.K. Laul F. I. REBELLO AND J. P. DEVADHAR, JJ. WRIT PETITION NO. 550 OF 1993 SEPTEMBER 3, 2007 Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Purchase of immoveable property by central government - Vesting of property in Central Government Where the petitioners objected to the flat being purchased under section 269UD(1) on various grounds set out therein and without furnishing the documents relating to the sale instances referred to in the show-cause notice, the purchase order was passed Held that admittedly the fair market value of the flat in question had not been determined, as a result thereof it could not be said that there was undervaluation to the extent of 15 per cent. Apart from the above, in respect of the sale instances referred to in the show-cause notice, the petitioners had specifically sought inspection of the documents but the same was not given. Failure to furnish relevant particulars of the sale instances relied upon by the revenue constituted breach of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the impugned order had been passed without considering the merits or demerits of the sale instances pointed out by the petitioners. In these circumstances the impugned order passed under section 269UD(1) was to be quashed. J D. Mistry and Jitendra Jain for the Petitioner. R. Ashokan for the Respondent. JUDGMENT ( Oral ) J.P. Devadhar, J.-This petition is filed to challenge the order dated February 25, 1993, passed by the appropriate authority under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). The facts relevant for the present petition are that by an agreement dated May 30, 1987, the petitioners agreed to purchase from respondent No. 4 Flat No. 111, situated at Warden Road, Mumbai - 400 026 for a consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs. On an application made in Form No. 37-1, the appropriate authority under the Income-tax Act passed a purchase order on August 20, 1987, under section 269UD(1) of the Act without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2891 of 1987 in this court. By an order…
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