RUMA PAL
MOI ENGINEERING LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY – Respondent
( 1 ) THE Court : On 17. 4. 89 the petitioners jointly entered into an agreement with one K. S. Binayak for sale of certain land, building, structure and machinery at a price of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. The petitioners and the transferee filed a statement under section 269 UC of Chapter XXC of the Income I Tax Act 1961 (referred to as the Act) before the respondent No. 1 being the Appropriate Authority for considering whether the Central Government would purchase the immovable property being the subject matter of the sale under section 269 UD (1) of the Act.
( 2 ) BY an order dated 12. 6. 89 the Appropriate Authority, being the respondent No. 1, held that the statement was premature inasmuch as the agreement dated 17. 4. 89 could not be implemented by reason of the restrictions contained in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (referred to as the 1976 Act ). It was stated that unless the proceedings under the 1976 Act were completed, no statement could be filed. This is the first order which has been impugned in this proceeding.
( 3 ) THE petitioners then made an application under the 1976 Act to the Competent Authority for a no objection certificate on 16th May
Sm. Satwant Narang v. Appropriate Authority
Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi v. Pooran Mall and Sons
Grindlays Bank Ltd., v. Income-Tax Authority, Calcutta and Ors.
M/s. Elson Machines Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.