Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Ranchhodbhai Galabhai Patel And Anr. vs Union Of India on 20 October, 1995

Jaspal Kaur vs Union Of India on 13 February, 1998

(iv) The only question which the Appropriate Authority can decide is whether the property is undervalued or not. The Appropriate Authority cannot go beyond the terms of the agreement; it cannot question the validity of the agreement to transfer immovable property, the legality of the transaction or the title of the vendor [Mrs.Satwant Narang Vs. Appropriate Authority (1991) 188 ITR 656 Del; Ranchhodbhai Vs. Union of India (1996) 219 ITR 427 (Guj) (DB); Mount Plaza Builders (P) Ltd. (supra); Moi Engineering Ltd. (supra); Irwin Almedia & Ors.(supra); Appropriate Authority Vs. Naresh N.Mehta (supra); IOL Ltd. (supra); Ramanlal B. Pandya (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Ramanlal B. Pandya And Anr. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 17 April, 1997

In support of his submissions, Sri Prasad relied upon the following decisions : Savitri Devi vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. , Mrs. Satwant Narang vs. Appropriate Authority Dwarakanath Chatterjee & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. , Tanvi Trading and Credits (P) Ltd. vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. , Appropriate Authority & Ors. vs. Tanvi Trading and Credits (P) Ltd. & Ors. , J. Gala Enterprises Estate & Investments (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. W. Hassan, CIT & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 110 (Bom) : TC 3PS.235, Ranchhodbhai Galabhai Patel & Anr. vs. Union of India , and Gordhandas Purshottamdas Patel & Ors. vs. Appropriate Authority .
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - P V Shetty - Full Document

Ramanlal B. Pandya & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr. on 17 April, 1997

In support of his submissions, Sri Prasad relied upon the following decisions : Savitri Devi vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. (1995) 211 ITR 10 (Del) 30, Mrs. Satwant Narang vs. Appropriate Authority (1991) 188 ITR 656 (Del) 065 Dwarakanath Chatterjee & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 213 ITR 470 (Cal) 25, Tanvi Trading and Credits (P) Ltd. vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. (1991) 188 ITR 623 (Del) 046, Appropriate Authority & Ors. vs. Tanvi Trading and Credits (P) Ltd. & Ors. (1991) 191 ITR 307 (SC) 046, J. Gala Enterprises Estate & Investments (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. W. Hassan, CIT & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 110 (Bom) 35, Ranchhodbhai Galabhai Patel & Anr. vs. Union of India (1996) 219 ITR 427 (Guj), and Gordhandas Purshottamdas Patel & Ors. vs. Appropriate Authority (1996) 217 ITR 62 (Guj) 05.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - P V Shetty - Full Document

Government Of India vs Jagadish A. Sadarangani on 21 June, 1996

Reliance was also placed on the decision in Ranchhodbhai Galabhai Patel v. Union of India [1996] 219 ITR 427 (Guj). That was a case in which the agreement of sale was entered into on April 9, 1994, to effect sale in respect of a plot of land admeasuring 4,000 sq. mts. situated within the limits of village Ravet, Taluk Haveli, District Pune. The consideration was Rs. 25,00,000. On September 14, 1994, the petitioners filed from No. 37-I and on December 12, 1994, a show-cause notice was issued by the appropriate authority under section 269UD(1A) of the Act to the petitioners. The appropriate authority passed an order dated December 26, 1994. Thereafter, then petitioners filed an application for rectification on January 19, 1995, before the appropriate authority and also filed supplementary submissions on May 17, 1995. The appropriate authority rejected the application for rectification by the order dated June 30, 1995, passed under section 269UD(1A). Both the orders were challenged. In that decision, it has been held that the only power which is conferred upon the appropriate authority under section 269UD of the Act is the power to decide whether to purchase the property or not. The investigation to be undertaken by the appropriate authority is only with a view to determine whether the pre-emptive right of purchase could be exercised or not. If the appropriate authority has reservations or doubts with regard to the legality of the proposed sale, it is open to the authority not to exercise the right to purchase, but section 269UD does not contemplate the rejection of any statement in Form No. 37-I by the appropriate authority. The certificate issued does not pronounce on the legality or validity of the transaction. If the transaction is otherwise illegal or invalid, it will be for some other authority in another forum to decide on the same. As far as the appropriate authority is concerned, the certificate which is issued has relation only to the question whether the Government is interested in purchasing the property or not.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1