Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the communication lodging the Form No. 37-I application was valid, and whether the petitioners were entitled to a no objection certificate under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: Chapter XX-C required the appropriate authority to decide within the statutory period whether to grant a no objection certificate or to make an order for pre-emptive purchase. The Court found that the authority did not pass any order within the prescribed period and instead issued the impugned communication after expiry of limitation. On the merits, the Court held that the materials did not show delivery of possession in part performance of the agreement so as to constitute a transfer within section 269UA(f) of the Act. The possession described by the purchaser was treated as permissive possession for making alterations, not possession under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The authorities' reliance on the cited precedents was held inapplicable because those cases involved admitted delivery of possession in part performance.
Conclusion: The impugned lodging of the application was illegal and unsustainable, and the petitioners were entitled to the no objection certificate.