Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1992 (2) TMI 188 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Chapter XX-A acquisition proceedings failed for limitation and lack of jurisdictional material to prove understatement and tax evasion. Chapter XX-A acquisition proceedings were held invalid because the Gazette publication under the first proviso to section 269D(1) was made after the ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Chapter XX-A acquisition proceedings failed for limitation and lack of jurisdictional material to prove understatement and tax evasion.

                            Chapter XX-A acquisition proceedings were held invalid because the Gazette publication under the first proviso to section 269D(1) was made after the mandatory nine-month period, so initiation was time-barred. The Competent Authority also lacked jurisdiction under section 269C(1) because, at the stage of initiation, independent material was required to show understatement of consideration with the object of tax evasion or concealment; an estimated excess of fair market value over apparent consideration was insufficient. On the evidence, the comparable sales relied upon were dissimilar, the valuation adopted was not sustained, and the statutory presumption under section 269C(2) stood rebutted.




                            Issues: (i) Whether initiation of acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A was barred by limitation under section 269D(1). (ii) Whether the Competent Authority had valid jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 269C(1) in the absence of material showing understatement of consideration and tax evasion. (iii) Whether the fair market value was correctly determined and the statutory presumption under section 269C(2) stood rebutted.

                            Issue (i): Whether initiation of acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A was barred by limitation under section 269D(1).

                            Analysis: The notice of acquisition was published in the Official Gazette after the expiry of nine months from the end of the month in which the agreement of transfer was registered. The statutory period prescribed by the first proviso to section 269D(1) is mandatory, and publication within that period is a condition for valid initiation.

                            Conclusion: The initiation of acquisition proceedings was barred by limitation and was invalid.

                            Issue (ii): Whether the Competent Authority had valid jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 269C(1) in the absence of material showing understatement of consideration and tax evasion.

                            Analysis: The statutory presumptions in section 269C(2) do not operate at the stage of initiation. Before jurisdiction can be assumed, there must be material from which a reasonable belief can be formed that the apparent consideration was not truly stated with the object of tax evasion or concealment of income. Mere reliance on an estimated excess of fair market value over apparent consideration was held insufficient without independent material showing understatement and the requisite object.

                            Conclusion: The preconditions for valid initiation under section 269C(1) were not satisfied, and the notice and acquisition order were without jurisdiction.

                            Issue (iii): Whether the fair market value was correctly determined and the statutory presumption under section 269C(2) stood rebutted.

                            Analysis: The comparable instances relied upon by the Competent Authority were found to be dissimilar, as they related mainly to better-located ground-floor shops or properties in different buildings and locations. The appellants relied on sales in the same building and nearby buildings, along with a registered valuer's report and surrounding circumstances affecting marketability. On the evidence, the alleged excess over apparent consideration was not established to the extent required, and the presumption stood rebutted.

                            Conclusion: The fair market value adopted by the Competent Authority was not sustained, and the presumption under section 269C(2) was rebutted in favour of the appellants.

                            Final Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were held to be void both for limitation and for want of valid jurisdictional foundation, and the appellants succeeded in getting the acquisition annulled.

                            Ratio Decidendi: For valid initiation of acquisition proceedings under section 269C, the Competent Authority must have independent material to believe that consideration was understated with the object of tax evasion or concealment; the statutory presumptions under section 269C(2) cannot by themselves furnish jurisdiction at the stage of initiation.


                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found