https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14088 For a transaction to escape Chapter XX-C on the basis that it was completed before the Chapter became operative in Bangalore, the transferee had to prove an actual completed transfer under the general law; a mere agreement to sell or asserted delivery of possession was insufficient without proof of completion in the legal sense. The Court also stated that, when Chapter XX-C was not yet operative locally, completion had to be tested under the Transfer of Property Act rather than by mechanically applying the special definition in section 269UA. On valuation, the Appropriate Authority's finding could be interfered with only if it ignored relevant material, relied on irrelevant material, lacked evidence, or was perverse; no such ground was shown. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:28:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14088 For a transaction to escape Chapter XX-C on the basis that it was completed before the Chapter became operative in Bangalore, the transferee had to prove an actual completed transfer under the general law; a mere agreement to sell or asserted delivery of possession was insufficient without proof of completion in the legal sense. The Court also stated that, when Chapter XX-C was not yet operative locally, completion had to be tested under the Transfer of Property Act rather than by mechanically applying the special definition in section 269UA. On valuation, the Appropriate Authority's finding could be interfered with only if it ignored relevant material, relied on irrelevant material, lacked evidence, or was perverse; no such ground was shown. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14088