Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Unitech Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 4 November, 2015 cites

Ashis Mukerji vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 July, 1996

There is also no doubt that an agreement is an arrangement. It must therefore be held that the collaboration agreement effectuates a transfer of the subject land from Vidarbha Engineering to Unitech within the meaning of the term in Section 269UA of the Act. It appears to be the intention of the Parliament to cover all such transactions by which valuable rights in property are in fact transferred by one party to another for consideration, under the word “transfer”, for fulfilling the purpose of pre-emptive purchase i.e. prevention of tax evasion. A Judgment of the Patna High Court in Ashis Mukerji v. Union of India and Ors[5] cited before us takes the view that a development agreement is covered by the definition of transfer in Section 269UA. We note the same with approval.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 18 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Mrs. Amarjit Thapar And Ors. vs S.K. Laul, Chief Engineer And Ors. on 4 June, 2007

12. By the writ petition before the High Court, the appellants raised several contentions. They maintained that the impugned order did not contain any finding that the consideration for the transaction was undervalued by the parties in order to evade taxes, which is the mischief sought to be prevented. Shri Mohta, the learned senior advocate, maintained that it was necessary for the authority to come to the conclusion that there is an attempt to or in fact an evasion of taxes before directing compulsory purchase. The learned senior counsel referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Amarjit Thapar v. S.K. Laul & Ors. [2008] 298 ITR 336. The Bombay High Court observed as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 4 - V C Daga - Full Document

C.B. Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 November, 1992

In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.B.Gautam (supra), unless the difference in the apparent effective consideration and the market value is more than 15%, the Appropriate Authority cannot assume jurisdiction under section 269-UD of the Act. The same does not mean that the mere fact that such difference is more than 15% will, automatically, lead to the conclusion that there has been undervaluation of property with the motive of evading tax.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 487 - Full Document
1