Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.23 seconds)
The Institute Of The Franciscan Clarist ... vs State Ofu.P. Thru Secretary ... on 18 February, 2020
cites
Maya Foods And Vanaspati Ltd., ... vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ... on 26 October, 1998
In view of the above discussion, proposition of law as as laid down in the case of M/s Maya Foods and Vanaspati Ltd., Allahabad (Supra) relied upon by this court is the settled law and squarely applies in the facts of the present case. Accordingly reasoning given by the authorities below on the question of imposition of stamp duty on future potential value is unsustainable. The orders passed by both the authorities i.e. respondents no 2 and 3 are hereby set aside."
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Ambrish Tandon & Anr on 20 January, 2012
Referring to the judgments cited by Sri Nagar, the first case being State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Amrish Tandon and Another (Supra), the Supreme Court in view of the fact of the case recorded as under:-
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 143 in The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Smt. Reeta Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And ... on 9 January, 2018
This Court in Writ-C No. 57052 of 2010 (Reena Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others) had the occasion to deal with a similar issue and the writ petition was allowed by means of a judgment dated 18.1.2020 relying upon another judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Properous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, wherein it was held as under:-
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
M/S Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 22 November, 2019
"This Court while considering the similar question in the case of M/s Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, recorded as under:-
Aniruddha Kumar And Ashwini Kumar vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, ... on 19 July, 2000
In Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P. Alld. and another 2000(3) AWC 2587 this Court has clearly laid down that where in respect of agricultural land there is no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A.and LR Act its nature would not change and its market value for the purposes of payment of stamp duty would be determined on the basis of the agricultural character of the land not on the future potentiality.
Rakesh Chandra Mittal And Ors. vs Addl. District Magistrate And Anr. on 15 April, 2004
"19. The Division Bench of this court in 2004 (5) AWC 3952, Rakesh Chandra Mittal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another has held that it is well settled principle that market value of the property has to be determined with reference to the date on which the document is executed. The Division Bench while holding the above proposition has noticed that land therein was being used for agricultural purpose at the time of purchase and after long time of purchase of the land, a small machine for extracting peppermint oil over a very small part of the land was installed. It has held that any subsequent improvement or change in the nature or user of the land , which may result into enhancement of the market value of the property is not to be taken into account and it is only the value of the property on the date of execution of the document that is to be considered for the purpose of determination of proper stamp duty payable on the instrument.