<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (7) TMI 152 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9999</link>
    <description>Compulsory purchase orders under Chapter XX-C were invalidated where the appropriate authority failed to disclose the valuation report, comparable sale instances and other materials relied upon before passing orders under section 269UD. The Delhi HC applied the principle that a meaningful hearing requires prior disclosure of adverse material so the affected party can meet the case against it. On the facts, the petitioner had specifically sought the documents, their non-supply was unrebutted, and the authority was found to have acted without affording a fair opportunity. The orders were quashed for breach of natural justice, and no remand was ordered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 152 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9999</link>
      <description>Compulsory purchase orders under Chapter XX-C were invalidated where the appropriate authority failed to disclose the valuation report, comparable sale instances and other materials relied upon before passing orders under section 269UD. The Delhi HC applied the principle that a meaningful hearing requires prior disclosure of adverse material so the affected party can meet the case against it. On the facts, the petitioner had specifically sought the documents, their non-supply was unrebutted, and the authority was found to have acted without affording a fair opportunity. The orders were quashed for breach of natural justice, and no remand was ordered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>