Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2004 (4) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Judgment Upheld Purchase Order, Directs Payment & Possession Transfer The judgment upheld the order of purchase dated 13th Sept., 1996 under section 269UD of the IT Act, 1961. It directed the payment of the consideration ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Judgment Upheld Purchase Order, Directs Payment & Possession Transfer

                            The judgment upheld the order of purchase dated 13th Sept., 1996 under section 269UD of the IT Act, 1961. It directed the payment of the consideration amount of Rs. 240 lakhs with interest to vendors and purchasers in a specified ratio. The vendors were to hand over possession of the property to the IT Department, and income tax was to be deducted at the source on the interest amounts. The disputes were resolved, and the legal proceedings were concluded with the implementation of agreed directions for payment, possession transfer, and tax compliance.




                            Issues:
                            Challenge to the order of purchase dated 13th Sept., 1996 under section 269UD of the IT Act, 1961; Dispute over the apportionment of the consideration of Rs. 240 lakhs between vendors and purchasers; Challenge to subsequent consequential orders; Payment of consideration with interest to vendors and purchasers; Possession of the property to be handed over to the IT Department; Tax deduction at source on interest accrued.

                            Analysis:

                            Challenge to Order of Purchase:
                            The petitions involved a challenge to the order of purchase dated 13th Sept., 1996 under section 269UD of the IT Act, 1961. Multiple petitions were filed by both vendors and purchasers, contesting various orders related to the transaction. The initial challenge was raised through Special Civil Application No. 8606 of 1996, which was admitted without interim relief. Subsequent petitions were also filed by vendors and a related party, seeking alternative reliefs regarding the consideration amount and interest.

                            Dispute over Consideration Apportionment:
                            A significant issue in the case was the dispute over the apportionment of the consideration of Rs. 240 lakhs between the vendors and purchasers. The vendors requested a 50:50 split of the total consideration, while the purchasers claimed entitlement to a refund of Rs. 125 lakhs already paid. This dispute led to the consideration amount being deposited with the Appropriate Authority as per the provisions of section 269UG of the IT Act, 1961.

                            Payment of Consideration and Interest:
                            The resolution of the dispute between the vendors and purchasers led to an agreement for the payment of the entire consideration amount of Rs. 240 lakhs with interest accrued. The agreement specified the distribution of the amount between the vendors and purchasers in a ratio of Rs. 115 lakhs to Rs. 125 lakhs, with interest to be paid from 30th Oct., 1996. The IT Department was directed to deduct income tax at source before disbursing the interest amounts to the respective parties.

                            Possession of Property and Tax Deduction:
                            The judgment also addressed the issue of possession of the property, with vendors undertaking to hand over vacant possession to the IT Department within a specified timeline. Furthermore, the Revenue Department highlighted the need for tax deduction at source on the interest amounts accrued on the consideration paid to vendors and purchasers, ensuring compliance with income tax regulations.

                            Conclusion:
                            The judgment concluded by disposing of the petitions in line with the agreed directions for payment, possession, and tax deductions. The order of purchase dated 13th Sept., 1996 was upheld, and the IT authorities were authorized to act upon it. The vendors and purchasers were to receive their respective shares of the consideration with interest, subject to tax deductions. The vendors were required to hand over possession of the property, bringing an end to the disputes and legal proceedings.

                            This detailed analysis outlines the core issues addressed in the judgment, including challenges to the purchase order, disputes over consideration apportionment, payment arrangements, possession transfer, and tax implications, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal complexities involved in the case.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found