Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Unique Associates Co-Operative ... vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1983
He further invited our attention to the judgment of Bombay High Court in Unique Associates Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 114, according to which the scheme of Chapter XX-A is highly penal. The proceedings would in appropriate case result in deprivation of the property owned by a person.
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 in order to highlight that there must be some material to even consider prima facie that the apparent consideration is not true, which is not the case as is evident from the reasons recorded.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Arun Mehra on 14 March, 1985
25. That for, prima facie, valuation has to be made taking the facts and circumstances into consideration which were before the Competent Authority. This has to be such as to enable the Revenue to have reason to believe that apparent consideration was understated. There are two factors for consideration and they are apparent consideration and fair market value. We find the formation of belief regarding the latter is not based on material as held by the jurisdictional High Court. The Honorable High Court of Delhi in Arun Mehras case (supra), held that the reasons recorded and the consequent belief entertained by the Revenue should be maintainable in law and that the market value should not be calculated in an abstract manner (p. 314-157 HR). We, therefore, hold that the proceedings have not been validly initiated for lack of proper material before the Competent Authority even at the preliminary stage.
Dr. Balbir Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi And Ors on 12 December, 1984
The provisions of Chapter XX-A are penal in nature and power under this Chapter to acquire immovable property is bound to guard against tax evasion. In order to justify the action, the necessary preliminary facts have to be established. A property cannot be valued without taking into account the preemptive stipulation attached to it or the provisions of the statue which are applicable to it. It cannot be said that said property has no market value but the valuation has to be assessed at by taking into account those restrictions. This is what has been held by the Honorable Supreme Court in to case of P. N. Sikand (supra) and Dr. Balbir Singh (supra). The submissions made in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellant are only to invite our attention to relevant facts and provisions of law, what would enable any body to determine the fair market value. It could not be equated to an additional ground or a matter not considered by the authority below. The very object for adjudication before the IAC (Acquisition) is determination of fair market value. We, therefore, reject the objections raised on behalf of the Revenue in this regard.
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
19. The learned D. R. on the other hand submitted that property is located in a posh locality; which is inhabited by embassies of several countries and rich class of the society like big businessmen and industrialists; the property is rectangular in shape; two side open on the Prithvi Raj Road, which is a hundred feed wide road. He submitted that on some plots of Prithvi Raj Road, multi-storeyed buildings have already come up, wherein two areas of Green Park and Hauz Khas compared with one such which are not such posh localities as Prithvi Raj Road. According to the rate of per sq. yds. of these two properties is a clear indication that fair market value of subject property cannot be in any case low as it is. He submitted that no evidence were available and none was furnished by the appellant to establish the genuineness of tenancy. The plea that Ceiling Act is applicable is to be rejected as agreement to sell clearly states that such Competent Authority has already found that there is no excess vacant land and had granted permission to the vendor. U/s. 269-C (2) presumption is available to the Revenue as the apparent consideration has not been truly stated and the object was to avoid taxes in case of both the vendor and the vendee. He relied on decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sutlej Chit Fund & Financiers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 174 and submitted that presumption is available at the initiation of these proceedings. He further relied on Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mahavir Metal Works (P.)
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1985
Ltd. v. Union of India [1974] 95 ITR 197, which is to the same effect. He submitted that latter judgment of Delhi High Court is based on its own peculiar facts on two different opinions of the Government valuers. He, therefore, submitted that initiation of proceedings is quite valid in law.
Section 7 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, New Delhi vs P.N. Sikand on 1 April, 1977
The provisions of Chapter XX-A are penal in nature and power under this Chapter to acquire immovable property is bound to guard against tax evasion. In order to justify the action, the necessary preliminary facts have to be established. A property cannot be valued without taking into account the preemptive stipulation attached to it or the provisions of the statue which are applicable to it. It cannot be said that said property has no market value but the valuation has to be assessed at by taking into account those restrictions. This is what has been held by the Honorable Supreme Court in to case of P. N. Sikand (supra) and Dr. Balbir Singh (supra). The submissions made in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellant are only to invite our attention to relevant facts and provisions of law, what would enable any body to determine the fair market value. It could not be equated to an additional ground or a matter not considered by the authority below. The very object for adjudication before the IAC (Acquisition) is determination of fair market value. We, therefore, reject the objections raised on behalf of the Revenue in this regard.