Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 145 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs P. Veerabhadarappa Etc. Etc on 9 January, 1984

The Revenue Divisional Officer vs N.Janaki Ammal on 16 July, 2009

39. Thus the law laid down in P.Veerabhadarappa's case {AIR 1984 SC 774} has held the field for the past 25 years and has been cited with approval in all decisions upto Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao's case {2007 (3) SCC 526}. Therefore the capitalisation method of valuation of the acquired land is permissible only in the absence of evidence of comparable sales or in the absence of other evidence for computation of market value.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Poddar vs Commissioner Of Gift-Tax on 12 February, 1991

"We have considered the rival submissions. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated May 22, 1980, determining the value of the gift at Rs. 5,45,700 and the rate of return to be adopted at 5.5% has become final as the assessee did not carry this order in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, we have to proceed only on the basis of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which is final. The Gift-tax Officer has only followed the said order. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ) has examined the case elaborately and we agree with his finding. So far as the hypothecation is concerned, Rs. 1,25,000 has been deducted. The other restrictions which the assessee relied on do not very much diminish the value of the gift. The observations relied on by the assessee in Parks Valuation do not actually apply to the facts in the instant case. The decision of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. P. Veerabhadarappa [1985] 154 ITR 190 does not help the assessee in any way. In fact, at page 200, it was observed that the 'investment in housing involves certainty of labour and effort such as maintenance, collection of rent, payment of taxes, etc., and the rate of return expected, therefore, was 11/2 per cent. to 21/2 per cent. more than what was expected from gilt-edged securities'. This observation actually goes against the assessee. On the leasehold land, the assessee has constructed superstructures and derived income and so much income would be more than the rate of interest on gilt-edged securities. Taking all these factors into consideration, the rate of return adopted at 5.5 per cent. is quite reasonable. Taking the entire facts into consideration, we hold that the value determined is quite justified."
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Mahesh Vadilal Gandhi And Ors. on 24 November, 1992

"In the case of agricultural lands, the method of capitalization is followed by our courts for several years See Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer , Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, , Union of India v. Smt. Shanti Devi, , Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. P. Veerabhadrappa, and Oriental Gas Co. Ltd. & others v. State of West Bengal, .
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Land Acquistion Officer And Anr. ... on 4 April, 2024

25- fo}ku vf/koDRkk vihykFkhZ Jherh lksgunsoh dh vksj ls izLrqr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma (supra) okys ekeys ds iSjk la[;k 4 esa fuEukuqlkj mYys[k fd;k x;k gS%& In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadrappa, etc. etc., [1984] 2 SCR 386 this court held that the method of valuation by capitalisation should not be resorted to when other methods are available. However, where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the, date of notification under s.4(1) or otherwise, the court has no other alternative but to fall back on the method of valuation by capitalisation. In valuing land or an interest in land for purposes of land acquisition proceedings, the rule as to number of years purchase is not a theoretical or legal rule but depends upon economic factors such as the prevailing rate of inter- est in money investments. The return which an investor will expect from an investment will depend upon the characteristic of income-as compared to that of idle security. The main features are: (1) security of the income; (2) fluctuation; (3) chances of increase; (4) cost of collection; etc. The traditional view of capitalised value being linked with gilt-edged securities, no longer be. rigorous when investment in fixed deposits with nationalised banks, National Savings Certificates, Unit' Trusts and other forms of Govt. securities and even in the share market command a much greater-return are available.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Y K Purohit - Full Document

Smt. Sohani Devi vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. ... on 4 April, 2024

25- fo}ku vf/koDRkk vihykFkhZ Jherh lksgunsoh dh vksj ls izLrqr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma (supra) okys ekeys ds iSjk la[;k 4 esa fuEukuqlkj mYys[k fd;k x;k gS%& In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadrappa, etc. etc., [1984] 2 SCR 386 this court held that the method of valuation by capitalisation should not be resorted to when other methods are available. However, where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the, date of notification under s.4(1) or otherwise, the court has no other alternative but to fall back on the method of valuation by capitalisation. In valuing land or an interest in land for purposes of land acquisition proceedings, the rule as to number of years purchase is not a theoretical or legal rule but depends upon economic factors such as the prevailing rate of inter- est in money investments. The return which an investor will expect from an investment will depend upon the characteristic of income-as compared to that of idle security. The main features are: (1) security of the income; (2) fluctuation; (3) chances of increase; (4) cost of collection; etc. The traditional view of capitalised value being linked with gilt-edged securities, no longer be. rigorous when investment in fixed deposits with nationalised banks, National Savings Certificates, Unit' Trusts and other forms of Govt. securities and even in the share market command a much greater-return are available.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Y K Purohit - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Administrative Of Lalji Maharaj, ... on 29 April, 1999

Though the Reference Court has also referred to the very same decision of the Supreme Court in its order, i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. P.Veerabhadrappa (supra) reported in AIR 1984 SC 774, it has taken this case as an instance and has applied the multiplier of 12.5 merely because in that case before the Supreme Court the Government Pleader had contended that the proper multiplier to be applied should be 12.5 in computation of the capitalised value of the lands in those cases having regard to the rate of return of 8 per cent at the relevant time, i.e. on the date of notification under sec.4(1) of the Act and in this view of the matter, the Supreme Court found that it must be held that the multiplier of 12.5 should be applied in computation of the capitalised value of the lands. In the present case, the notification was issued in the year 1985 whereas in the case before the Supreme Court the acquisition proceedings had been initiated in the years 1971 and 1972 and the multiplier of 12.5 was applied in the facts of that case, otherwise it was categorically observed that for the purpose of capitalisation, the multiplier to be applied should not exceed 10. We, therefore, find that instead of applying the multiplier of 12.5, the Reference Court ought to have applied the multiplier of 10 only and accordingly the market price should have been computed by multiplying the amount of Rs.52/- per Are by 10 instead of Rs.650/- per Are. To that extent, the impugned order deserves to be modified.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R P Dholakia - Full Document

Sh. Shafiq Ahmed vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2020

3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangre v. P. Veerabhadarappa & Ors. Reported as (1984) 2 Supra Court Cases 120 LAC NO.11/18 Shafiq Ahmed Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 3 Of 34 2.1 It is submitted that application of circle rates for calculation of market value is held illegal for which citation relied upon by the petitioner referred at para no. (I) of the petition which are reproduced hereasunder:
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next