TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: (i) Whether the order for pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act could stand when the difference between the apparent and discounted consideration and the fair market value was not shown to exceed 15 per cent.; and (ii) whether the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Issue (i): Whether the order for pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act could stand when the difference between the apparent and discounted consideration and the fair market value was not shown to exceed 15 per cent.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under Chapter XX-C permitted pre-emptive purchase only where the consideration was understated by more than the prescribed margin. On the figures recorded in the show-cause notice, the apparent and discounted consideration of the subject property did not fall below the comparable property by 15 per cent. or more. The Court relied on the earlier binding decision holding that where the difference is less than 15 per cent., an order of pre-emptive purchase cannot be sustained.
Conclusion: The impugned purchase order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Analysis: The impugned notice and order were issued and passed by the appropriate authority at Ahmedabad, and the reply was also submitted there. Those facts constituted a sufficient part of the cause of action within the territorial limits of the Court. The availability of jurisdiction in another High Court did not exclude jurisdiction here.
Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the statutory basis for pre-emptive purchase was not made out, and the Court found no jurisdictional bar to granting relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C cannot be sustained unless the understatement threshold prescribed by the statute is satisfied, and territorial jurisdiction may lie where material parts of the cause of action arise within the Court's limits.
TaxTMI 
