Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        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

        Court upholds compulsory property purchase, rejects valuation challenge. Limited judicial review.

        Mansrover Builders Pvt. Limited Versus Union Of India And Others

        Mansrover Builders Pvt. Limited Versus Union Of India And Others - [1996] 222 ITR 91, 129 CTR 168, 83 TAXMANN 323 Issues Involved:
        1. Legality of the show-cause notice issued by the appropriate authority.
        2. Comparison of sale instances and determination of fair market value.
        3. Validity of the petitioner's claim regarding tenancy and its impact on property value.
        4. Judicial review of the appropriate authority's decision-making process.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Legality of the Show-Cause Notice:
        The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice was not signed by the appropriate authority. However, the court noted that the notice was issued under the authority of the appropriate authority, as indicated by the opening sentence of the notice: "Under the instructions of the Appropriate Authority, Delhi, I am to state...". Thus, the court found no merit in the petitioner's plea.

        2. Comparison of Sale Instances and Determination of Fair Market Value:
        The appropriate authority compared the subject property (A-208, Defence Colony) with other properties, namely C-538, A-20, A-2, A-175, and D-319, Defence Colony. The authority calculated the land rates after adjusting for factors like salvage value, time, and location. For instance, the land rate for C-538 was determined to be Rs. 36,969 per sq. mt., significantly higher than the apparent consideration of the subject property. Similarly, the land rate for A-20 was Rs. 31,494 per sq. mt. The court found that the appropriate authority's calculations were not controverted by the petitioner and were reasonable. The court also addressed the petitioner's argument regarding the comparability of properties in different blocks of Defence Colony, noting that the authority had taken into account relevant factors such as proximity to parks and other amenities.

        3. Validity of the Petitioner's Claim Regarding Tenancy and Its Impact on Property Value:
        The petitioner claimed that a room in the property was tenanted, which justified the lower sale price. The appropriate authority inspected the property and found that the alleged tenanted portion was a temporary structure and not a room. The tenant, Anand Goswami, admitted that the shop had been closed since May 1989. The authority concluded that the tenancy claim was not genuine and was raised to explain the lower transaction price. The court agreed with the authority's findings.

        4. Judicial Review of the Appropriate Authority's Decision-Making Process:
        The court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process, not the correctness of the decision itself. The court found that the appropriate authority had followed the procedure outlined in Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and had provided reasonable opportunities for the parties to present their case. The authority's decision was based on relevant factors and was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including C. B. Gautam v. Union of India, to support its position that the authority's decision should not be interfered with unless it was perverse or based on no evidence.

        Conclusion:
        The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appropriate authority's order for the compulsory purchase of the property. The possession of property No. D-208, Defence Colony, New Delhi, was to be handed over to the fourth respondent, Container Corporation of India Ltd. The court found no fault with the authority's determination that the apparent sale consideration was significantly below the fair market value and that the petitioner's claims regarding tenancy and property valuation were not substantiated.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found