Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2837 2004 SLD 2837 (2004) 271 ITR 229
Bombay High Court
WRIT PETITION No. 2203 OF 1994 FEBRUARY 20, 2004
D.D. SINHA AND K.J. ROHEE, JJ. 20-FEB-04

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

Vidarbha Engg. Industries

v.

Union of India

Law:

Section:

Section 269UC, read with section 269UD, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Purchase of immovable property by Central Government - Restrictions on transfer - Petitioner No. 1, who was exclusive owner of certain plot, entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with petitioner No. 3 for development of said plot at latter's cost - Appropriate authority issued a show-cause notice for pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C on ground that land situated in adjoining area to property in question had been sold for Rs. 283 per square foot of FSI, whereas land in question was sold for Rs. 184 per square foot of FSI and, therefore, consideration in respect of said land was understated by more than 15 per cent - Thereafter, appropriate authority passed an order under section 269UD(1) ordering purchase of immovable property - Whether once consideration is understated by 15 per cent or sale is untruely made, ulterior motive of concealment of income or tax evasion should be presumed unless rebutted by parties - Held, yes - Whether for determining understatement of consideration, fair market value has to be seen and same can be considered on basis of sale instance of property similarly situated on date of sale of property in question - Held, yes - Whether where sale transaction is effected under compelling circumstances and is a distress sale, it is for transferor to bring to notice of department special circumstances in which lower price has been agreed upon, and in this regard transferor gets first opportunity while submitting Form No. 37-I wherein he is required to give details - Held, yes - Whether merely because lands, though similar in nature, location and other characteristics and are situated adjacent to each other, fall in different areas because of different names given to different areas in town, that by itself is no ground for not comparing sale transaction in respect of such lands, if dates of such sale transactions are in close proximity with each other and there is no bar in such situation, to accept sale consideration of such sale instance as fair market value of land in said area - Held, yes - Whether since, in instant case, sale instance which was made basis…
🔒
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