TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after proceedings had been initiated under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by filing Form No. 37EE and issuance of notice under section 269D(1), the Revenue could abandon that process and proceed under Chapter XX-C on the basis of a later Form No. 37-I, and whether the order directing pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD(1) could stand.
Analysis: The agreement for transfer was entered into before Chapter XX-C came into force, but the decisive circumstance was that the statutory process under Chapter XX-A had already been set in motion by filing Form No. 37EE and by issuance of notice under section 269D(1). The Court held that once acquisition proceedings had commenced under Chapter XX-A, the procedural safeguards and remedies available under that Chapter could not be displaced by the more onerous regime of Chapter XX-C. The later amendment and filing of Form No. 37-I did not justify switching over to a different and harsher procedure, particularly when such a course would prejudice the transferees. The case was distinguished from authorities where no Chapter XX-A proceedings had been initiated before Chapter XX-C became operative.
Conclusion: The order under appeal was rightly quashed. The notice/order of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C could not be sustained after the initiation of proceedings under Chapter XX-A, and the appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The judgment affirms that proceedings validly commenced under Chapter XX-A must be carried to their logical end under that Chapter, and the Revenue cannot shift to Chapter XX-C to the detriment of the transferee once the statutory acquisition process has begun.
Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory acquisition proceedings have already been initiated under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue cannot substitute the later Chapter XX-C procedure so as to deprive the parties of the procedural protections attached to the commenced proceeding.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
