https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14315 Where a pre-emptive purchase order was set aside for failure to deal with valuation objections as required by law, the purchaser could not be burdened with interest on the discounted consideration for the entire intervening period. The Court held that, since the purchaser had not been put in possession and the delay was not solely attributable to the purchaser, a direction to deposit the principal amount with interest at 15% per annum was inequitable and unsustainable. The interest component was therefore deleted, while the remand for fresh consideration and the direction to deposit principal only were maintained. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:49:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14315 Where a pre-emptive purchase order was set aside for failure to deal with valuation objections as required by law, the purchaser could not be burdened with interest on the discounted consideration for the entire intervening period. The Court held that, since the purchaser had not been put in possession and the delay was not solely attributable to the purchaser, a direction to deposit the principal amount with interest at 15% per annum was inequitable and unsustainable. The interest component was therefore deleted, while the remand for fresh consideration and the direction to deposit principal only were maintained. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14315