Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.67 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr vs The Company Law Board And Others on 4 May, 1966
The point is concluded by the above decision also. Since no satisfaction has been arrived at by the respondent on the basis of objective facts and no reasons and/or grounds have been recorded for coming to a positive conclusion as to why there was difference of more than 15% in apparent and real consideration, the order cannot be said to be in accordance with law and must be quashed and set aside.
Smt. Vimla Devi G. Maheshwari vs S.K. Laul And Ors. on 10 March, 1993
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).
Section 269UC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Vimal Agarwal vs Appropriate Authority And Others on 27 July, 1994
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).
C.B. Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 November, 1992
In the said case, after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the High Court of Bombay held that after decision in C. B. Gautam vs. Union of India & Ors. 1993 (1) SCC 78, a show cause notice is required to be given to both - transferor and transferee before acquiring the property under Chapter XX-C of the Act. But in exercise of writ jurisdiction, there cannot be any appraisal or reappreciation of facts and materials. Interference in writ jurisdiction is justified only when the order made by Appropriate Authority is either perverse or there is no evidence or is passed on some extraneous consideration and/or materials. Mr. Shelat contended that this Court is not exercising appellate powers, and the extent of judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution is limited to correcting only errors of law apparent on record. As far as proposition of law is concerned, there can be no dispute. It is true that we cannot substitute our opinion for the opinion of Appropriate Authority by reappreciating the facts. In the instant case, however, as stated by us hereinabove, SIP-1, and SIP-2, are not comparable instances and yet they have been compared by the respondent and a finding has been recorded by Appropriate Authority that there was understatement of consideration of PUC of more than 15%. This is not permissible in law. Such instances could not have been relied upon by Appropriate Authority. Likewise, the respondent authority has committed an error of law in not properly considering the fact that the PUC was tenanted property and it could not have been compared with SIP-1. Again, in case of SIP-2, the authority considered the fact regarding property in occupation of tenant as relevant for not treating it as comparable to other property on which reliance is placed by the Department but the same reasoning was not applied in case of PUC. Finally, the fact of payment of conversion charges also weighed with the authority which was not the case and the statement was factually not correct. In our opinion, therefore, Mr. Shelat is not right in contending that this is a case of reappreciation of facts. In our view, factors which could not have been taken into account were considered which has vitiated the order passed by the authority. We may also observe that in view of insertion of sub-s. (1A) of s. 269UD of the Act w.e.f. 17th Nov., 1992, notice is required to be issued to both - transferor as well as transferee.
Devesh Behari Saxena vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 15 April, 1993
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).
1