| Case ID |
4403e9f8-d611-4ef9-8a20-061dacd05dad |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
WRIT PETITION No. 1198 OF 1995 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 25, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Bombay High Court quashed the order of the Appropriate Authority that had directed the pre-emptive purchase of the petitioners' immovable property under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the comparison made between the property under consideration (PUC) and the sale instance property (SIP) was erroneous, as the SIP was not comparable to the PUC due to significant differences in location, zoning, and property characteristics. The court emphasized that the authority's reliance on mathematical calculations to determine under-valuation was inappropriate when the properties were fundamentally different. The decision reinforced the principle that for the provisions of Chapter XX-C to apply, the properties must be comparable and the under-valuation must be clear and significant, exceeding 15% of the fair market value. |
| Summary |
In the case of Vishnu Maruti Ghosale v. Appropriate Authority, the Bombay High Court addressed the issue of pre-emptive purchase orders under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners, who owned a plot of land, were accused of under-valuing their property by more than 15% based on a sale instance property that was significantly different in location and characteristics. The court found that the Appropriate Authority improperly compared the properties and did not adequately consider the distinct features that made the properties non-comparable. The ruling highlights the importance of a thorough evaluation of property values and the necessity for comparable sales in determining tax obligations. This case serves as a precedent for future disputes involving property valuations in tax matters, emphasizing the need for fair assessments grounded in relevant market conditions and property characteristics. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
H.L. Gokhale,
J.P. Devadhar
|
| Lawyers |
Ms. Asifa Khan,
V.H. Patil,
R. Asokan
|
| Petitioners |
Vishnu Maruti Ghosale
|
| Respondents |
Appropriate Authority
|
| Citations |
2006 SLD 3775,
(2006) 285 ITR 459
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Mrs. Rita Joseph [1999] 238 ITR 391 (Mad.),
C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530/[1992] 65 Taxman 440 (SC),
Primetime Media Services (P.) Ltd. v. U.V. Shahadadpuri [1996] 217 ITR 417/[1995] 83 Taxman 491 (Bom.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
269UD
|