2001 (10) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bench of the High Court at Delhi (see [1999] 239 ITR 197). It dismissed the writ petition that had been filed before it by the present appellants. The appellants are the purchasers of immovable property bearing No. 142 at Madhuban, Delhi. The immovable property was purchased under an agreement to sell dated April 26, 1995, for the sum of Rs.50 lakhs. The immovable property was sought to be take....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n done, the apparent consideration under the present agreement to sell would have been seen to fall within the permissible difference. When the rectification application was filed the appellants had already filed the writ petition. The order on the rectification application went against the appellants but the appellants did not amend the writ petition to challenge that, order. Nevertheless, the po....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....propriate authority had been invited to the sale transaction of the property at 135 Madhuban, Delhi, which was comparable; and that, had this comparison been made, no occasion to deny the "No objection certificate" to the appellants would have arisen. In reply to this contention, learned counsel for the appropriate authority submitted: ". . . that the FAR of the property in question was differe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies were different. What the respective FARs were or what the difference was was not disclosed either in the order or before the High Court; nor, indeed, is it disclosed now. We think, in these circumstances, that the judgment and order under challenge must be set aside, as also the order of the appropriate authority dated July 3l, 1995, and that the matter should be reconsidered by the appropr....