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 the order of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C was sustainable when the appropriate authority ignored available comparable sale instances in the same locality and failed to record statutory grounds showing understatement of consideration by more than fifteen per cent.
Analysis: The record showed that the petitioners had produced nearby sale instances in the same village, close in time to the agreement, which were relevant for determining fair market value. The authority instead relied on a distant transaction in a different village without first dealing with the local comparable material. The authority also rejected the local instances merely because they were not themselves subject to Chapter XX-C, which was an irrelevant consideration for assessing comparability. In addition, section 269UD(1B) required the authority to specify grounds and make a positive finding on fair market value and significant undervaluation; mere rejection of objections was insufficient. The order did not disclose reasons germane to the statutory purpose of preventing tax evasion.
Conclusion: The purchase order could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed; the decision was in favour of the petitioners.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
