https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267497 A collaboration agreement was held to fall within the expanded Chapter XXC definition of "transfer" because it conferred rights enabling enjoyment of immovable property, even though title in the land was not conveyed. However, the compulsory pre-emptive purchase order failed because the valuation was based on a mistaken treatment of the consideration as relating to the entire FSI rather than the subject land, and the Appropriate Authority relied on unsuitable sale instances while ignoring materially comparable evidence. The resulting non-application of mind made the finding of understatement unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded with both orders set aside. en-us Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Aug 2018 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267497 A collaboration agreement was held to fall within the expanded Chapter XXC definition of "transfer" because it conferred rights enabling enjoyment of immovable property, even though title in the land was not conveyed. However, the compulsory pre-emptive purchase order failed because the valuation was based on a mistaken treatment of the consideration as relating to the entire FSI rather than the subject land, and the Appropriate Authority relied on unsuitable sale instances while ignoring materially comparable evidence. The resulting non-application of mind made the finding of understatement unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded with both orders set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267497