Section 230A clearance requires consistent ownership claims and a registrable transfer interest; inconsistent pleadings defeated relief.

Clearance under section 230A of the Income-tax Act was held to depend on a prospective registrable document, an interest sought to be transferred by the applicant, and satisfaction of the applicable value threshold. The Court also treated each application as requiring independent consideration by the Income-tax Officer. Relief was refused because the writ petitioners took inconsistent positions: their writ case asserted one ownership structure, while the prescribed application form stated a different bifurcation of legal, equitable and beneficial ownership. Those contradictions prevented interference with the refusal of clearance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitioners were entitled to a clearance certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act despite taking a stand in the writ petition that differed from the stand taken in the prescribed application form, and whether the refusal of clearance could be interfered with.

Analysis: The petitioners claimed in the writ petition that the landowners retained legal title while the developers had an interest in the building and could seek clearance independently. In the application form, however, the petitioners asserted a different bifurcation of ownership, describing themselves as the legal owners and the landowners as equitable and beneficial owners. The inconsistent positions made it impossible to grant relief. The Court also indicated, by way of guidance, that clearance under section 230A depends on the existence of a prospective registrable document, an interest sought to be transferred by the applicant, and the value threshold, and that each application must be considered independently by the concerned Income-tax Officer.

Conclusion: The writ petitioners were not entitled to relief, and the refusal to grant clearance was not interfered with.

---