9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the registering authorities of the State had agreed to work together to resolve the dispute – the Court directed the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow and the Inspector General (Stamps and Registration) to hold a further meeting so that the Court could be apprised whether the dispute has been resolved - the dispute has been resolved at the meeting which was held on 17 July 2014. The mee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and by the Inspector General (Registration), in order to challenge the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requiring Sub Registrars to furnish information in respect of transactions relating to immovable property of a value between ₹ 5,00,000/- and ₹ 30,00,000/-. When the petition initially came up on 29 May 2014, this Court, inter-alia, issued directions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow and the Inspector General (Stamps and Registration), Government of Uttar Pradesh. A copy of the minutes is annexed to the affidavit. It is common ground that the dispute has been resolved at the meeting which was held on 17 July 2014. The minutes, inter alia, record as follows: After discussions, it was reiterated by both the parties that on its part, the Sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal petition before the appropriate authority. The meeting concluded with the resolution that the SROs shall provide the information called for by the Income Tax Department, as agreed above. However, this shall be without prejudice to the legality of applicability of penal provisions for non-furnishing of information u/s 133(6) in the case of SROs. In view of the agreed position between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
