<?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>2007 (2) TMI 188 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13367</link>
    <description>Compulsory purchase under Chapter XX-C can be made only after affording the transferee a statutory reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the authority must base pre-emptive purchase on genuinely comparable material showing significant undervaluation with a tax-evasion nexus. Here, service on the transferee was not directly proved, presumptions could not replace effective notice, and the record indicated no real opportunity to be heard before the order was made. The valuation basis also failed because the relied-upon sale instance was materially dissimilar in locality and transaction character, making the fair market value assessment unsustainable. The purchase order was therefore not supportable on hearing or valuation grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 15:19:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 188 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13367</link>
      <description>Compulsory purchase under Chapter XX-C can be made only after affording the transferee a statutory reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the authority must base pre-emptive purchase on genuinely comparable material showing significant undervaluation with a tax-evasion nexus. Here, service on the transferee was not directly proved, presumptions could not replace effective notice, and the record indicated no real opportunity to be heard before the order was made. The valuation basis also failed because the relied-upon sale instance was materially dissimilar in locality and transaction character, making the fair market value assessment unsustainable. The purchase order was therefore not supportable on hearing or valuation grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>