Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (9) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ect that the petitioners would pay to Thirani a sum of Rs. 13.03 lakhs, to Onyx Rs. 99,150 and to Lansdowne, a sum of Rs. 33,000 for transferring office space Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8 measuring 4,428 square ft. on the fourth floor along with car parking space in favour of the petitioners in terms of the deed of agreement which is annexure B to the writ petition. The flats were under construction. The petitioners filed Form No. 37EE in terms of requirement under section 269AB(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), read with rule 48DD and the Competent Authority duly registered the said agreement under registration No. 30EE/Acq.R-III/231, dated July 22, 1985. On May 14, 1986, the petitioners received a notice dated M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, the Revenue/Department has come up with this appeal. In the instant case no sale deed was executed by the transferor nor delivery of possession was given to the transferee as the construction was not completed. The petitioners filed the statement in Form No. 37EE under Chapter XX-A and the appropriate authority issued notice of compulsory purchase under section 269D of Chapter XX-A of the Act. Consequent upon the application of Chapter XX-C of the Act in Calcutta with effect from October 1, 1986, the petitioners also filed another statement in Form No. 37-I, under rule 48L of Chapter XX-C. The appropriate authority again issued another notice of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C. There is no dispute that prior to September 30, 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... khs shall be effected, except after an agreement for transfer is entered into between the persons who intend to transfer the immovable property and the person who; intends to purchase the same. This view has been taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in K.K. Anandam Ammal v. Union of India [1995] 212 ITR 9 and in another decision oil the Gujarat High Court in Shantivan Corpoation v. Sub-Registrar [1991] 189 ITR 583 relied upon by Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellants. In the Gujarat case, the Chapter XX-C came into operation on June 1, 1989, and the deed of agreement was executed on May 30, 1989, stipulating that possession was to be delivered only after the receipt of the entire amount of consideration. The a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , cited decisions of the Delhi High Court in Sunshine Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1995] 213 ITR 749, where the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held : "Thus a transaction effected prior to October 1, 1986, which involves the transfer of a right enabling the transferee to enjoy the building to be constructed becomes a statutory transfer for purposes of Chapter XX-A and such a 'transfer' is exposed to the statutory steps contemplated by section 269C. The creation of any right enabling the taking of possession for enjoyment of a building to be put up, under a transaction effected prior to October 1, 1986, would, therefore, attract the application of Chapter XX-A, just like any other 'transfer', including, a transfe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ith Chapter XX-A all the procedural safeguards and remedies thereunder would be available to the petitioners. The provisions of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C being more onerous the petitioners cannot be deprived of the procedural benefits available under Chapter XX-A, despite the fact that the provision of Chapter XX-C were also applicable to the agreements for sale prior to October 1, 1986. The appellants cannot abandon the procedure of acquisition of property by the Central Government under Chapter XX-A and switch over to the more onerous procedure prescribed for pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C, despite amendments in partial compliance with the decision of the apex court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of Indoa [1993] 199 ITR 5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates