TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Point, Mumbai, for value of ₹ 21,44,000. 2. The facts which are relevant for consideration are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the agreement between Gupta Investments & Constructions (P) Ltd. and Mr. P.A. Daruwalla the said Gupta Investments agreed to sell the said office premises to Daruwalla. On 20-7-1978 agreement between Daruwalla and Mr. Kartarsingh Bagga and Gupta Investments took place by which Daruwalla sold the said premises to Mr. Kartarsingh Bagga. Thereafter pursuant to agreement between Mr. Kartarsingh Bagga and the respondent No. 5, Capt. Jagdish Khokhar, Mr. Kartarsingh Bagga agreed to sell the premises for ₹ 3,84,000. However, before the said agreement could be acted upon and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther sum of ₹ 3,55,000 to Mr. Virendra Singh Bagga, the heir and legal representative of Kartarsingh Bagga. On 4-12-1989 at the request of the respondent No. 5 the 1st petitioner made a further payment of ₹ 50.000 to Virendra Singh Bagga. The 1st petitioner also paid to the respondent No. 6 society an amount of ₹ 3,54,588.27 being the arrears of the said society in respect of the said premises. Out of the said amount of ₹ 3,54,588.27 an amount of ₹ 2,94,415.33 related to the period upto December 1988. 5. Agreement between 1st petitioner and respondent No. 5 for sale of the said premises was entered into on 22-3-1990 for a consideration of ₹ 21,44,000. It was recited in the said agreement that the sum of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioned the reasons recorded by the Appropriate Authority for making the said earlier order dated 28-5-1990. In fact the very order which was set aside by this court, was annexed as "reasons" in the show-cause notice. 11. On 22-1-1993 the petitioners filed written submissions. Again on 29-1-1993 the petitioners filed further submissions. 12. Further according to the petitioner they received an order under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act passed on 26-2-1993 with "reasons recorded" holding that the property was fit for purchase by the Central Government and was accordingly being purchased. 13. Thus aggrieved by the above order dated 26-2-1993, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 14. Mr. Korde, the learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not comparable with the said premises, as Atlanta, Bajaj and Mittal court are in prime locations in Nariman Point. Even there would be no sea view from the said premises after a building comes up on a plot next to Arcadia plot. It is vital to note that Arcadia plot is in a narrow back-lane, compared to the aforesaid three properties. Also, all the instances mentioned had a clear title without doubts, disputes or litigations. Even the time gap between the inception of the idea and the execution was of 14 months, therefore, can be distinguishable from the referred instances. Thirdly, Chapter XX-C of the Act clearly states that the transfer of the premises would occur only if the fair market value is over 15 per cent than the apparent consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a back-lane in Nariman Point and the premises cited by the Appropriate Authority are on prime main roads and also in prominent corners of Nariman Point, hence not comparable at all to the petitioner's property. 18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The Apex Court in" the case of C.B. Gautam (supra) has held that the provisions of Chapter XX-C can be resorted to only when there is a significant undervaluation to the extent of 15 per cent of the fair market value with a view to evade tax. As held by this court in the case of Vimal Agarwal v. Appropriate Authority (supra), it is necessary to first determine the fair market value of the property in question in the light of the attending circumstances. This court has....