https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15944 The court dismissed the petition challenging the order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners' arguments regarding the liability for ground rent and property tax were rejected due to lack of quantification in the agreement. The court deemed the comparison with A-27, Swasthia Vihar, appropriate over 135, Madhuban, considering FAR and sale recency. The court upheld the calculation method, emphasizing the exceeding 15% difference between consideration and market value. No finding on tax evasion motives was deemed crucial, and the court found no violations of natural justice, ultimately dismissing the petition and vacating the interim order. en-us Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:12:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15944 The court dismissed the petition challenging the order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners' arguments regarding the liability for ground rent and property tax were rejected due to lack of quantification in the agreement. The court deemed the comparison with A-27, Swasthia Vihar, appropriate over 135, Madhuban, considering FAR and sale recency. The court upheld the calculation method, emphasizing the exceeding 15% difference between consideration and market value. No finding on tax evasion motives was deemed crucial, and the court found no violations of natural justice, ultimately dismissing the petition and vacating the interim order. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15944