1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Invalid initiation of acquisition proceedings under Income Tax Act due to lack of grounds; court quashes proceedings.</h1> The court held that the initiation of acquisition proceedings under section 269C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was invalid as the Competent Authority lacked ... Appeal To Tribunal, Penalty Issues Involved:1. Validity of the initiation of acquisition proceedings u/s 269C of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. Applicability of sub-s. (2) of s. 269C at the stage of initiation of acquisition proceedings.Summary:1. Validity of the initiation of acquisition proceedings u/s 269C of the I.T. Act, 1961:The petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority on the grounds that the conditions precedent for such initiation were absent. The Competent Authority must have reason to believe that the fair market value of the property exceeds Rs. 25,000, the apparent consideration is less than the fair market value, and the consideration has not been truly stated with the object of evading tax or concealing income. The court held that the Competent Authority acts on subjective satisfaction based on objective factors and cannot act arbitrarily. In this case, there was no material to form the belief that the consideration was not truly stated by the LIC, and thus, the initiation of the proceedings was without jurisdiction.2. Applicability of sub-s. (2) of s. 269C at the stage of initiation of acquisition proceedings:The court examined whether sub-s. (2) of s. 269C, which involves presumptions about the fair market value and apparent consideration, applies at the initiation stage. The court referred to several judgments, including Smt. Bani Roy Chowdhury v. Competent Authority and Subhkaran Chowdhury v. IAC, which held that the evidentiary value of presumptions in sub-s. (2) of s. 269C is not applicable at the initiation stage. The court agreed with these views, stating that the rules of evidence in sub-s. (2) apply only after the initiation of proceedings. Therefore, the Competent Authority could not rely on sub-s. (2) of s. 269C for forming the belief necessary to initiate acquisition proceedings.Conclusion:The court quashed the impugned proceedings, issuing a writ of mandamus to prevent further action under Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act and a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings. The operation of this order was stayed for six weeks.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
