TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a development agreement for construction of a building complex fell within Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether the order of pre-emptive purchase was valid when it purported to acquire property beyond the subject-matter of the agreement and when consideration was not tendered in the manner required by law; (iii) whether there was any violation of natural justice in the proceedings before the appropriate authority.
Issue (i): whether a development agreement for construction of a building complex fell within Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The agreement was not a simple sale of land. It contemplated demolition of existing structures, construction of a new complex, allocation of 60 per cent of the built-up area to the developer, retention of 40 per cent by the owner, and rights in common areas and associated amenities. On that footing, the transaction answered the extended statutory definitions of immovable property and transfer in Chapter XXC, particularly the category covering rights in or with respect to land or a building to be constructed.
Conclusion: The agreement was covered by Chapter XXC, and the petitioner was not entitled to succeed on the contention that the Chapter was inapplicable altogether.
Issue (ii): whether the order of pre-emptive purchase was valid when it purported to acquire property beyond the subject-matter of the agreement and when consideration was not tendered in the manner required by law.
Analysis: The order proceeded on the premise that 60 per cent of the land area and the existing double-storeyed building were to be acquired, whereas the agreement related only to an undivided 60 per cent share and not to a physical 60 per cent portion of the land or the existing structure. The taking over note likewise treated the property as though a specific segregated portion had been acquired. In addition, the amount payable as consideration was neither tendered to the petitioner within the statutory time nor validly justified by any genuine dispute as to entitlement, and the mandatory requirements of sections 269UG and 269UE were not complied with.
Conclusion: The impugned acquisition order was invalid and stood abrogated for non-compliance with the statutory requirements governing tender of consideration and delivery of possession.
Issue (iii): whether there was any violation of natural justice in the proceedings before the appropriate authority.
Analysis: The proceedings were taken up within the statutory time frame, and the parties were given notice and an opportunity to respond to the proposed action. The Court found that the principles of natural justice were not breached merely because the matter was concluded expeditiously within the statutory schedule.
Conclusion: There was no violation of natural justice.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded because, although Chapter XXC applied to the transaction, the acquisition could not stand in view of the statutory defects in the order and the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for tender of consideration and delivery of possession, resulting in revesting of the property in the owner.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a development agreement falls within the extended definition of transfer under Chapter XXC, a pre-emptive purchase order must strictly conform to the subject-matter of the agreement and the mandatory statutory requirements as to tender of consideration and possession, failing which the order is abrogated and the property revests in the transferor.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
