https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68204 Chapter XX-A acquisition proceedings were upheld on the basis that the competent authority had material, including a DVO valuation showing substantial disparity between declared consideration and fair market value, to form the requisite belief. The notice under section 269D(1) was treated as valid when read with the sale deed and because it was published in the Gazette, locality and by affixation; participation in the proceedings cured curable defects. Objections based on non-issue of notices to later allottees and denial of cross-examination failed because the allottees were not persons interested at the initiation stage and no prejudice was shown. The alleged 2 October 1974 agreement was found suspicious and backdated, so it could not alter the relevant transfer date. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68204 Chapter XX-A acquisition proceedings were upheld on the basis that the competent authority had material, including a DVO valuation showing substantial disparity between declared consideration and fair market value, to form the requisite belief. The notice under section 269D(1) was treated as valid when read with the sale deed and because it was published in the Gazette, locality and by affixation; participation in the proceedings cured curable defects. Objections based on non-issue of notices to later allottees and denial of cross-examination failed because the allottees were not persons interested at the initiation stage and no prejudice was shown. The alleged 2 October 1974 agreement was found suspicious and backdated, so it could not alter the relevant transfer date. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68204