Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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 :

        1993 (4) TMI 56 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        Writ petition dismissed due to lack of merit in rescission claim and property valuation dispute. Possession delay granted. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's submissions regarding the rescission of the agreement for sale and the ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Writ petition dismissed due to lack of merit in rescission claim and property valuation dispute. Possession delay granted.

                            The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's submissions regarding the rescission of the agreement for sale and the inclusion of the loft area in the property valuation. The possession of the shop premises was not to be taken over for six weeks, with an extension for payment of consideration. No costs were awarded.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Validity of the rescission of the agreement for sale during the pendency of the earlier writ petition.
                            2. Inclusion of the loft area in the valuation of the property.

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            Issue 1: Validity of the Rescission of the Agreement for Sale
                            The petitioner contended that during the pendency of the earlier writ petition, an agreement dated August 11, 1992, rescinded the original agreement for sale dated December 20, 1991. The petitioner argued that this rescission rendered the original agreement and the statement filed in Form No. 37-1 on December 31, 1991, invalid for consideration by the appropriate authority.

                            The court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's judgment in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 did not quash the entire proceedings emanating from the statement in Form No. 37-1. Instead, it only set aside the order under section 269UD(1) due to the lack of adequate opportunity given to the assessee. The Supreme Court directed that the statement in Form No. 37-1 be treated as filed on the date of the judgment to overcome the limitation period prescribed in section 269UD(1).

                            The court noted that the Supreme Court did not direct the parties to file fresh statements nor provided an option to file or not file the same. This was to prevent vendors from defeating acquisition proceedings by exploiting the Supreme Court's decision. The court also highlighted that under section 269UK of the Act, there are specific restrictions on altering agreements for the transfer of immovable property once a statement has been filed under section 269UC. The petitioner did not fall under any exceptions to this rule.

                            Therefore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's first submission, stating that the rescission of the agreement during the pendency of the writ petition was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court and the scheme of the Act.

                            Issue 2: Inclusion of the Loft Area in the Valuation
                            The petitioner argued that the loft area was not part of the property intended to be sold and that the authorities erroneously included its value in the market valuation of the property.

                            The court examined the order of the appropriate authority, which discussed this matter in detail. The appropriate authority concluded that the loft area was indeed part of the shop premises, which was the subject of the sale agreement. The authority noted that the transfer of five shares resulted in the transferor losing the right to occupy any part of the premises, including the loft. The court found that the appropriate authority had carefully considered all relevant facts and concluded that the loft area was an integral part of shop No. 2A.

                            The court observed that the petitioner had not raised any objections regarding the inclusion of the loft area before the initial order under section 269UD(1) on February 26, 1992. The objection was only raised after the order was passed. The court found that the appropriate authority had applied its mind properly to all relevant facts and therefore, there was no justification to interfere with its conclusion.

                            Conclusion:
                            The court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, finding no merit in either of the petitioner's submissions. The court directed that the possession of the shop premises shall not be taken over for six weeks, provided the petitioner does not part with possession or create any third-party rights. The date of payment of consideration to the petitioner was extended to two weeks after the expiry of this six-week period. No order as to costs was made.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found