| Case ID |
321044c0-a743-4c4f-8a27-e84f91aa7d91 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 26, 1991 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Shantivan Corporation, affirming the order dated August 26, 1989, under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that no valid transfer of property occurred prior to June 1, 1989, as the sale deed was lodged for registration on May 30, 1989, and the provisions of Chapter XX-C were applicable to the area. The court found that the intention of the parties was clear that ownership would only transfer upon full payment of the consideration, which had not been completed. Consequently, the appropriate authority's order for the Central Government to purchase the property was upheld. The court ruled that the absence of a no-objection certificate from the Income Tax Officer justified the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register the property. The court also noted that any claim of possession prior to June 1, 1989, was not substantiated and appeared to be an afterthought. |
| Summary |
In the case of Shantivan Corporation v. Sub-Registrar, the Gujarat High Court addressed the complexities surrounding the transfer of immovable property under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Key to the ruling was the examination of whether a valid transfer had occurred before the implementation of Chapter XX-C, which imposed restrictions on the transfer of property in certain urban areas. The case arose from a dispute where the petitioner, Shantivan Corporation, argued that a sale deed executed on May 29, 1989, should have been registered despite the new regulations coming into effect on June 1, 1989. The court scrutinized the terms of the sale deed, which indicated that the transfer of ownership was contingent upon the payment of the full purchase price, including post-dated cheques. The court concluded that since the necessary conditions for transfer were not met before the new law took effect, the order by the appropriate authority for the Central Government to acquire the property was valid. This case highlights the significance of compliance with statutory provisions in property transactions and the implications of the timing of registration and transfer of ownership. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal intricacies involved in real estate transactions, particularly under evolving taxation laws. |
| Court |
Gujarat High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
R.C. Mankad, Acting C.J.,
R.K. Abichandani, J.
|
| Lawyers |
J.P. Shah,
K.N. Raval
|
| Petitioners |
Shantivan Corporation
|
| Respondents |
Sub-Registrar
|
| Citations |
1991 SLD 1731,
(1991) 189 ITR 583
|
| Other Citations |
Ram Saran Lall v. Mst. Domini Kuer AIR 1961 SC 1747,
Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh AIR 1969 SC 244,
Amarchand J. Agarwal v. Union of India [1983] 142 ITR 402(Bom.),
Amarchand Jainarain Agarwal v. Union of India [1982] 11 Taxman 146/[1983]142 ITR 410 (Bom.),
Arundhati Balkrishna v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 245 (Guj.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
269C,
230A(1),
269UD(1),
269UC,
269UE
|