Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Vimal Agarwal vs Appropriate Authority And Others on 27 July, 1994

Govardhandas Odhavji Dhakan And Anr. vs Appropriate Authority on 24 September, 2007

5. Mr. Asokan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand supported the order of the Appropriate Authority. He fairly stated that prior to the decision of this Court in the case of Vimal Agarwal v. Appropriate Authority , there was no practise of determining the fair market value in respect of property purchased under Section 269UD(1) of the Act. He submitted that in the present case, petitioners have not furnished any sale instance in support of their contention. In these circumstances on the basis of sale instances on record, the Appropriate Authority was justified in passing the impugned order.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

Ketki Land Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Appropriate Authority And Anr. on 19 March, 1995

10. Mr. Shelat contended that the present petition is filed by the transferee who has no locus standi in such proceedings to challenge the order passed under s. 269UD(1) of the Act. But even if it is assumed that he has such right, then also, the right is a limited one. For the said proposition of law, reliance is placed on decisions in Devesh Behari Saxena vs. Dy. CIT & Anr. (1994) 208 ITR 637 (All), Smt. Vimala Devi G. Maheshwari vs. S. K. Laul & Ors. (1994) 208 ITR 734 (Bom), Vimal Agarwal vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. (1994) 210 ITR 16 (Bom), and in Lok Housing & Construction vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. (in writ petition No. 548 of 1995 decided by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay on 26th April, 1995).
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Ketki Land Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Appropriate Authority & Anr. on 19 March, 1995

10. Mr. Shelat contended that the present petition is filed by the transferee who has no locus standi in such proceedings to challenge the order passed under s. 269UD(1) of the Act. But even if it is assumed that he has such right, then also, the right is a limited one. For the said proposition of law, reliance is placed on decisions in Devesh Behari Saxena vs. Dy. CIT & Anr. (1994) 208 ITR 637 (All), Smt. Vimala Devi G. Maheshwari vs. S. K. Laul & Ors. (1994) 208 ITR 734 (Bom), Vimal Agarwal vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. (1994) 210 ITR 16 (Bom), and in Lok Housing & Construction vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. (in writ petition No. 548 of 1995 decided by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay on 26th April, 1995).
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - C K Thakker - Full Document

1. Mrs. Kailash Suneja (C.W. No. 5220 Of ... vs Appropriate Authority And Others. Dr. ... on 17 December, 1997

Learned senior counsel referred to Vimal Agarwal v. Appropriate Authority [1994] 210 ITR 16, wherein the Bombay High Court held "that the onus of establishing that the under valuation is with a view to evade tax is on the Revenue. An imputation of tax evasion arises in a case where an order of compulsory purchase is made which casts a slur on the parties to the agreement. Such an imputation cannot be made mechanically without due regard to the explanation of the affected parties. The presumption of under valuation in the case of under valuation of 15 per cent. or more being a rebuttable one, the evidence led by the intending seller or purchaser assumes great importance. The court also took note of the limited time available to the appropriate authority and observed that it cannot be construed to confer power on the appropriate authority to pass an order without carefully consideration the facts and circumstances set out by the intending seller or purchaser and analysing the comparable cases cited by such persons". The court further observed (page 29) :
Delhi High Court Cites 147 - Cited by 291 - Full Document

Mrs. Kailash Suneja & Ors. vs Appropriate Authority & Ors. on 17 December, 1997

72. The learned senior counsel referred to Vimal Aggarwal vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. wherein the Bombay High Court held "that the onus of establishing that the under valuation is with a view to evade tax is on the Revenue. An imputation of tax evasion arises in a case where an order of compulsory purchase is made which casts a slur on the parties to the agreement. Such an imputation cannot be made mechanically without due regard to the explanation of the affected parties. The presumption of under valuation in case of under valuation of 15 per cent. or more being a refutable one, the evidence led by the intending seller or purchaser assumes great importance. The Court also took note of the limited time available to the Appropriate Authority and observed that it cannot be construed to confer power on the Appropriate Authority to pass an order without carefully considering the facts and circumstances set out by the intending seller or purchaser and analysing the comparable cases cited by such persons. The Court further observed :
Delhi High Court Cites 141 - Cited by 0 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Kishore K. Shahani And Ors. vs Appropriate Authority, Income Tax ... on 9 October, 1996

In view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Vimal Agarwal v. Appropriate Authority and others, reported in (1994) I.T.R. Vo. 210, page 16 and the Division Bench Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarwarben Temas Khambata & others v. Appropriate Authority reported in (1995) I.T.R. Vol. 216, page 850, the respondents-Appropriate Authority are expected to come to a definite conclusion that the undervaluation is by more than 15% of the fair market value and for that purpose it is expected on their part to have arrived at a fair market value of the subject property and demonstrate that there is a difference between the consideration and the fair market value of more than 15%. We find no such assessment in the impugned order is done by the respondents-Appropriate Authority.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M B Shah - Full Document

Hiten Rashmikant Mehta And Swati Hiten ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 October, 2007

As held by this Court in the case of Vimal Agarwal v. Appropriate Authority reported in 210 I.T.R. 16, it is necessary first to determine the fair market value of the property in question in the light of attending circumstances and without determining the fair market value, it is not only difficult but impossible to state that the apparent consideration is lower than the market value by 15% or more. In the present case, on perusal of the impugned order it is seen that the fair market value of the flat in question has not been determined at all and, therefore, purchase Page 2579 of the flat in question on the footing that there is undervaluation to the extent of 15% of the fair market value has to be held to be without any basis.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - J P Devadhar - Full Document
1   2 Next