Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)Section 269UD in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover vs Appropriate Authority & Ors. on 2 December, 1994
19. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has rightly relied on the two authorities i.e. the decision of this Court in the case of Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover v. Appropriate Authority (Income-tax Department), Ahmedabad and others, reported in 1995 Tax L.R. 355 wherein it is held that :---
C.B. Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 November, 1992
6. Mr. Sethna, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the respondents did not comply with the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order and that it was the grievance of the petitioners that the Appropriate Authority did not supply the sale instances relied upon by them before passing the impugned order even though the personal hearing was given to the petitioners. According to Mr. Sethna at the relevant time when the impugned order came to be passed ie. prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & others, reported in (1993) 199 I.T.R. 530 it was not a requirement under the statute to give personal hearing to the parties when an order under section 269-UD(1) passed.
Sarwarben Temas Khambata And Ors. vs Appropriate Authority on 9 March, 1994
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.
Vimal Agarwal vs Appropriate Authority And Others on 27 July, 1994
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.
Rajalakshmi Narayanan vs Margaret Kathleen Gandhi & Ors on 14 August, 1992
In the circumstances the petitioners shall pay to the respondent No. 3 (Vendor) under the said agreement what is due and payable with interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum from the date when the Appropriate Authority returned the apparent consideration to the petitioners as held in the case of Rajalakshmi Narayanan v. Margaret Kathleen Gandhi and others, reported in (1993) I.T.R. Vol. 201, page 681 within a period of two months from today i.e. the date on which this petition has been disposed of. On making such payment the respondents-Appropriate Authority shall hand over the possession of the subject property to the petitioners.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 269UC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mount Plaza Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Appropriate Authority And Others on 2 August, 1991
It is submitted by Mr. Sethna that in view of the fact that the sale instances relied upon by the Appropriate Authority were not supplied to the petitioners is considered to be in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court is still competent to remand the matter back to Appropriate Authority for a de-novo trial on a time bound schedule as was done in the case of Home Builders v Appropriate Authority and about 45 others such matters where the impugned orders were passed prior to C.B. Gautam's case (supra) and such remand of the matter will serve the purpose of the present petition and give the parties a chance to vindicate their grievance.