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 the Tribunal quashing the acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act was , in view of the valuation material, the effect of the property's redevelopment restrictions, the relevance of the L & D.O. rates and comparable sale instances, and the significance of the alleged tenancy; and whether the question relating to the availability of the presumption under section 269C(2) required decision in this appeal.
Analysis: The valuation adopted by the Competent Authority was found to be unsound because it relied on small freehold comparables without properly accounting for the larger leasehold property, the restrictions under the Urban Land Ceiling law, the low floor area ratio, the limited redevelopment potential, and the Government's own L & D.O. rates for the area. The existence of tenancy was also an important factor affecting value and potential, and the Competent Authority had failed to make a proper enquiry into it. Chapter XX-A provisions were treated as penal in nature and therefore requiring strict application. On these facts, the material before the Competent Authority was held insufficient to sustain the initiation and continuation of the acquisition proceedings. The question whether the presumption under section 269C(2) was available at the initiation stage was expressly left open.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision quashing the acquisition proceedings was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal failed; the assessee succeeded on the substantive challenge to the acquisition order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
