https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9498 The court quashed the order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, ruling in favor of the petitioners, a private limited company and its director. The court found the authority's basis for undervaluation flawed as the properties used for comparison were not comparable. It emphasized the obligation to tender consideration within the specified period, which the Central Government failed to do. Consequently, the property revested in the petitioners due to the failure to comply with statutory obligations. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, making the rule absolute with no order as to costs. en-us Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9498 The court quashed the order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, ruling in favor of the petitioners, a private limited company and its director. The court found the authority's basis for undervaluation flawed as the properties used for comparison were not comparable. It emphasized the obligation to tender consideration within the specified period, which the Central Government failed to do. Consequently, the property revested in the petitioners due to the failure to comply with statutory obligations. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, making the rule absolute with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9498