9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ashing. the complaint filed by the respondent, Mr. R. K. Sandhu, DCIT, Office of the Appropriate Authority, under section 276AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition was treated as criminal revision petition on September 5, 2003. Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act (in short "the Act") requires that whenever an immovable property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te agreement to sell in favour of the purchaser for Rs. 32,50,000 which at the relevant time was less than the limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. It is contended by the petitioners that the law as prevailed then, as interpreted by this court, exempted such transactions from the requirement of section 269UC and that only subsequently the Supreme Court in the case of Appropriate Authority v. Smt. Varshaben Bhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion of the Madras High Court is shown in K. V. Kishore v. Appropriate Authority reported in [1991] 189 ITR 264. The Supreme Court approved of the opinion of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jodhram Daulatram Arora v. M. B. Kodnani [1996] 221 ITR 368 which ran contrary to the opinion of the High Courts of Madras and Delhi. It may be pointed out here that the purchaser also filed a simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re this court. I appreciate that the judgment dated March 1, 2004, be not treated as a precedent as a general interpretation of law but it looks very unfair to deny the benefit of this order to the petitioners who are accused in the same case simply because they may not be as old as Mr. Ram Lal Munjal may have been. If the present petitioners are prosecuted for the same offence for which the co- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
