2000 (6) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Rules.
- Contravention of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the exemption thereunder.
- Contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
- Violation of the sanctioned development plan.
- Challenge to the decision of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
- Challenge to the corrigendum notification dated November 22, 1996.
- Challenge to the sanctioned development plan.
- Challenge to permission granted by the State Pollution Control Board.
- Contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991.
- Contravention of the Development Control Regulation No. 59.
- Amalgamation of sixth and ninth respondents fraudulent, illegal and intended to circumvent law.
- Application of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:
(a) Violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Rules:
The court found no violation of CRZ rules, stating that construction of hotels is permitted in CRZ-II and CRZ-III and that the concerned plot does not fall within CRZ-I area. The construction does not contravene the CRZ-II Regulations.

(b) Contravention of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the exemption thereunder:
The court did not find any violation of the exemption order under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act or the conditions stipulated therein.

(c) Contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:
The court agreed with the respondents that the validity of the sanctioned building plans would not be affected by the Bombay Municipal Corporation's failure to take over the land.

(d) Violation of the sanctioned development plan:
The court found that the sanction granted by the State Government to the development plan was not vitiated on account of non-application of mind and the contention must fail.

(e) Challenge to the decision of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India:
The court held that the Ministry of Environment and Forests reconsidered its stand and granted the sanction after detailed consideration. The court saw nothing wrong and refused to sit in appeal over the decision.

(f) Challenge to the corrigendum notification dated November 22, 1996:
The court found that the exercise of power by the Commissioner or the State Government to shift/interchange the designation/reservation did not amount to a modification of the sanctioned Development Plan requiring the prescribed procedure.

(g) Challenge to the sanctioned development plan:
The court deemed the contention immaterial at this stage and did not decide on it.

(h) Challenge to permission granted by the State Pollution Control Board:
The court found no substance in the challenge as the ninth respondent obtained permission subject to certain restrictions which it is bound to comply with.

(i) Contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991:
The court held that the development permission extended from time to time in the case of the sixth and the ninth respondents cannot be said to be illegal.

(j) Contravention of the Development Control Regulation No. 59:
The court found no error in granting development permission to the sixth and the ninth respondents, stating that the height restriction in the Development Control Regulation No. 59 would not apply.

(k) Amalgamation of sixth and ninth respondents fraudulent, illegal and intended to circumvent law:
The court meticulously examined the allegations and found no fraud or misrepresentation in the amalgamation order. The court held that the amalgamation order, which has become final and binding, cannot be challenged by the petitioners in a collateral proceeding in the present writ petition.

(l) Application of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The court held that Chapter XX-C is not intended to apply to situations of transfer of immovable property consequent upon an amalgamation scheme being sanctioned by an order of the court. The court found no statutory basis for the contention that a no objection certificate under Chapter XX-C is a condition precedent to the company court considering the scheme for amalgamation.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000 each to the first, second, fourth, sixth, and ninth respondents. All interim orders were vacated.