SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Cal) 18

RUMA PAL
MOI ENGINEERING LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY – Respondent


RUMA PAL, J.

( 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



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top