Composite land transfer with future construction consideration falls within Chapter XX-C and can be tested by comparable sale valuation.

A development agreement transferring an undivided share in land for composite consideration of cash and future construction was treated as a transfer within Chapter XX-C because the consideration could be valued in money terms, including the value of promised built-up space as on the agreement date. The pre-emptive purchase order was sustained because the authority issued notice, considered objections, and relied on a proximate comparable sale showing substantial undervaluation; the objections based on title deeds, eviction assistance, funding urgency, and later transactions did not rebut the valuation basis or the statutory presumption of intent to evade tax.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a development agreement for transfer of an undivided share in land, with part of the consideration consisting of cash and part consisting of future construction, falls within Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the appropriate authority's order for pre-emptive purchase was vitiated by absence of jurisdiction, procedural infirmity, or error in finding undervaluation.

Issue (i): Whether a development agreement for transfer of an undivided share in land, with part of the consideration consisting of cash and part consisting of future construction, falls within Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The agreement involved transfer of 88 per cent of the undivided share in land for a composite consideration comprising cash and construction of built-up area. Chapter XX-C applies to transfers of immovable property where the apparent consideration can be computed in money terms. The statutory definitions of transfer and apparent consideration comprehend consideration consisting of money and things, including future construction valued as on the date of the agreement. A document styled as a development agreement does not escape the statutory scheme if its substance is a transfer of rights in immovable property for consideration.

Conclusion: The transaction was covered by Chapter XX-C, and the petitioners' challenge on the ground of want of jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appropriate authority's order for pre-emptive purchase was vitiated by absence of jurisdiction, procedural infirmity, or error in finding undervaluation.

Analysis: The authority compared the agreed consideration with a proximate sale of comparable land and found the apparent consideration to be substantially below market value by more than 15 per cent. The objections based on loss of title deeds, alleged eviction assistance, urgency of funds, and later transactions were not shown to justify the lower consideration. The authority had issued notice, considered objections, and recorded reasons. Reference to additional transactions did not displace the central comparable sale relied upon for valuation. The statutory presumption of intent to evade tax was not rebutted.

Conclusion: The order of pre-emptive purchase was valid and sustainable on merits.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld, and the writ petitions challenging it were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Chapter XX-C, a transfer of immovable property for composite consideration that includes future construction of built-up space is a taxable transfer if the consideration is capable of being valued in money, and undervaluation may be determined by comparison with a proximate comparable sale unless rebutted by convincing material.

---