TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Income-tax Act order, affirms jurisdiction & fair valuation method. Limited judicial review.</h1> The court upheld the order of the Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, finding it legal and valid. It affirmed the authority's ... Proceedings of the first respondent-Appropriate Authority, passed under section 269UD - Whether the petitioner was entitled for writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings and quash the same - The appropriate authority has considered all the objections and it is not as if it has either not adverted to or failed to consider the objections. On a comparison of the two sales which are comparable in all respects the appropriate authority has come to the right conclusion that the presumption drawn by it as detailed in the show cause notice stands unrebutted and this is a fit case where it should exercise pre-emptive right to purchase the schedule property under transfer at an amount equal to the amount of discounted consideration for the reasons discussed in its order. - writ petitions are dismissed Issues Involved:1. Legality and validity of the order passed by the Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act.2. Jurisdiction of the Appropriate Authority in invoking Chapter XX-C.3. Scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.4. Entitlement of the transferor's wife and daughter to the sale proceeds.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Legality and Validity of the Order under Chapter XX-CThe transferor and transferees challenged the order of the Appropriate Authority, which exercised its pre-emptive right to purchase the property under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act. The petitioners contended that the authority failed to consider various factors such as the property being tenanted since 1985, lack of direct access from the main road, and the property's location in a lane inconvenienced by a U-turn and fly-over. They also argued that the market for residential properties was low during 1998-99, and the agreed price was fair given the circumstances. The court examined these contentions and found that the Appropriate Authority had considered all relevant factors, including the comparable sale transactions and the fall in real estate prices. It concluded that the authority's decision was not arbitrary or illegal and upheld the order.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Appropriate AuthorityThe petitioners argued that the agreement between the transferor and transferees was to be completed within fourteen weeks, making Chapter XX-C inapplicable. The court rejected this argument, stating that the transaction's value clearly attracted Chapter XX-C. The court found that the Appropriate Authority had jurisdiction to invoke Chapter XX-C and that the method of valuation was fair and reasonable.Issue 3: Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226The court emphasized that its role was not to act as an appellate body but to review the decision-making process for any procedural violations or errors apparent on the face of the record. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, the court reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining whether the authority considered relevant factors and followed due process. The court found no procedural violations or misdirection by the Appropriate Authority and held that the order was not liable to be interfered with.Issue 4: Entitlement of the Transferor's Wife and DaughterThe court noted the unfortunate condition of the transferor's wife, who required immediate funds for cancer treatment, and the daughter's need for marriage expenses. The agreement between the transferor and transferees provided for the payment of Rs. 17 lakhs to the wife. The court directed the Appropriate Authority to pay Rs. 17 lakhs with proportionate interest to the wife and daughter within two weeks, ensuring they would not suffer any longer.Conclusion:The writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the order of the Appropriate Authority. The court directed the payment of Rs. 17 lakhs to the transferor's wife and daughter, addressing their immediate financial needs. The court found no grounds to interfere with the authority's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
