https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11913 Under Chapter XX-C, the pre-emptive purchase order was upheld because the authority considered relevant comparables, market conditions, and the petitioners' objections, and its valuation finding that the apparent consideration was materially below fair market value was not shown to be perverse. A short contractual period for completion did not oust jurisdiction under section 269UD(1), since the statutory scheme depends on the nature and value of the transfer, not the agreement's time limit. Judicial review under article 226 remained confined to the decision-making process, so no interference was warranted. The wife and daughter of the transferor were entitled to payment of the earmarked amount with proportionate interest from deposit. en-us Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11913 Under Chapter XX-C, the pre-emptive purchase order was upheld because the authority considered relevant comparables, market conditions, and the petitioners' objections, and its valuation finding that the apparent consideration was materially below fair market value was not shown to be perverse. A short contractual period for completion did not oust jurisdiction under section 269UD(1), since the statutory scheme depends on the nature and value of the transfer, not the agreement's time limit. Judicial review under article 226 remained confined to the decision-making process, so no interference was warranted. The wife and daughter of the transferor were entitled to payment of the earmarked amount with proportionate interest from deposit. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11913