Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the competent authority was entitled to reduce the apparent consideration by applying the discounting principle to the deferred portion of the sale price where the departmental payment under Chapter XX-C was made after the contractual due date; and whether the retained sum towards transfer fees was liable to be refunded.
Analysis: The definition of apparent consideration under section 269UA(b) contemplates discounting only where consideration is payable on dates falling after the agreement and the value payable after such date is to be treated as discounted value as on the date of the agreement. The Court held that discounting operates as a rebate for earlier payment and, on the facts, the Department's payment was made after the date stipulated in the agreement. In such a situation, the transferor could not be subjected to discounting, and the authority could not compute the payable amount by reducing the consideration on that basis. The respondents also accepted the petitioner's challenge to the retention of Rs. 5,00,000 towards transfer fees, leaving only the question of refund and interest.
Conclusion: The application of discounting was held impermissible on the facts, and the petitioner was entitled to the balance consideration without such reduction, together with refund of the retained transfer-fee amount and applicable interest.