Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revisionary order under section 263 was justified in setting aside the assessment on the ground that exemption under section 10(37) had been wrongly allowed on the transfer of land and that the capital gains had not been correctly examined.
Analysis: The assessment was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because the assessee had not established that the land transfer was by way of compulsory acquisition under law, which is a cumulative requirement for exemption under section 10(37). The transfer documents showed a mutual agreement and sale to GIDC, and the transaction was not shown to be a compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the successor acquisition regime. The initial acquisition notification had lapsed in the changed statutory setting, and the later transaction did not acquire the character of compulsory acquisition merely because it followed earlier acquisition proceedings. The alternative plea that no transfer occurred in the year was not relevant to the limited issue examined in revision.
Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was valid, and the assessee was held not entitled to exemption under section 10(37) on the facts found.