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 appropriate authority could be compelled to act under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act on a Form No. 37-I statement when the underlying agreement for transfer was held to be void and non est in law because the petitioners had no transferable title, transfer was barred by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and there was an express judicial restraint against transfer.
Analysis: Chapter XX-C contemplates a legally enforceable agreement for transfer as the jurisdictional foundation for action under sections 269UD and 269UL. The petitioners failed to establish that they had title to the land, the land had already been declared excess vacant land under the Ceiling Act, transfer of such land was statutorily void, and an earlier court order had restrained alienation. On these facts, the agreement filed in Form No. 37-I could not be treated as a valid agreement capable of triggering the statutory machinery. Authorities dealing with Chapter XX-C are not obliged to act upon a transaction that is void in law or otherwise incapable of enforcement.
Conclusion: The writ petitioners were not entitled to a mandamus directing the appropriate authority to issue a no objection certificate or otherwise proceed on the basis of the impugned Form No. 37-I statement.