Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 269UG

Gujarat H.C : The petitioner filed the form under s. 269UC on 25th May, 1992, and the Appropriate Authority at Ahmedabad, respondent No. 2 herein, passed the order under s. 269UD(1) for acquiring the property in question after deducting Rs. 71,491 by way of discount for accelerated payment

Avijit Das / August 19, 2004

High Court Of Gujarat Ratilal H. Nayak vs. Union Of India Section 269UG(4) M.S. Shah & D.A. Mehta, JJ. Special […]

Sec. 269UG, Sec. 269UH

Karnataka H.C : This writ appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby W.P. No. 26455 of 1993 filed by the appellant, herein has been dismissed and an order of pre-emptive purchase of property passed by respondent-Appropriate Authority under s. 269UD(1)

Avijit Das / April 5, 2004

High Court Of Karnataka T.S. Raghavan vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. Sections 269UG, 269UH, ART. 226 Tirath S. Thakur &

Sec. 269UG, Sec. 269UH

Karnataka H.C : This writ appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby W.P. No. 26455 of 1993 filed by the appellant, herein has been dismissed and an order of pre-emptive purchase of property passed by respondent-Appropriate Authority under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 upheld

Avijit Das / April 5, 2004

High Court Of Karnataka T.S. Raghavan vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. Sections 269UG, 269UH, ART. 226 Tirath S. Thakur &

Sec. 269UE, Sec. 269UG

Bombay H.C : The petitioner was the owner of the property bearing Survey No 411/1, Plot No. 1/A at Mouje: Bhosari, Taluka Haveli, District: Pune.

Avijit Das / March 4, 2004

High Court Of Bombay Jethamal Mohanlal Khivansara vs. Union Of India & Anr. Sections 269UE, 269UG V.C. Daga & J.P.

Sec. 269UA, Sec. 269UG

Bombay H.C : The petitioner is challenging an order dt. 18th Feb., 1994, passed by the Appropriate Authority, respondent No. 2 herein, under sub-s. (1) of s. 269UD

Avijit Das / January 22, 2004

High Court Of Bombay Mukund L. Vora vs. Union Of India Sections 269UA(b)(2), 269UG V.C. Daga & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.

Sec. 269UG, Sec. 269UH

Delhi H.C : Challenge in this writ petition is to the legality of the order dt. 30th March, 1993, passed by the Appropriate Authority under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (for short ‘the Act’), directing preemptive purchase of the ground floor of the house bearing No. D-203, Defence Colony, New Delhi

Avijit Das / October 30, 2003

High Court Of Delhi Raj Kumar vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 269UG, 269UH D.K. Jain & Madan B.

Rajasthan H.C : To declare that the provisions of s. 269UG(3) were not attracted in the instant case and that the recourse to the said provisions was clearly without jurisdiction and absolutely illegal.

Avijit Das / August 29, 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Ratnalaya Diamonds (P) Ltd. vs. Union Of India Section 269UG Shiv Kumar Sharma,

Sec. 269UD, Sec. 269UF, Sec. 269UG

S.C : The appellants’ challenge under Art. 226 of the order passed by the Appropriate Authorities under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (referred to hereafter as ‘the Act’) was turned down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. They have, therefore, assailed the decision of the High Court before us.

Avijit Das / December 20, 2002

Supreme Court Of India Hans Raj Agarwal & Anr. vs. CCIT & Ors. Section 269UD, 269UF, 269UG, Art. 226 Ms.

Sec. 269UG, Sec. 269UH

Calcutta H.C : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 27th March, 1996 [reported as Madhusudhan Das & Ors. vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. (1997) 143 CTR (Cal) 342 : TC S3.321— Ed.] passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned single Judge disposed of an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short).

Avijit Das / January 29, 2002

High Court Of Calcutta Union Of India & Ors. vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. Sections 269UG, 269UH Ashok Kumar Mathur,

Sec. 269UD, Sec. 269UG, Sec. 269UH

Delhi H.C : Petitioner’s application (CM 9134/01). Since the modification/directions sought for in the applications are in substance similar, both the applications are being disposed of by this common order.

Avijit Das / January 7, 2002

High Court Of Delhi Dr. A.K. Garg & Anr. vs. Kailash Nath & Associates & Ors. Sections 269UD, 269UG, 269UH

Post pagination

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top