https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17659 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was attracted because part of the cause of action arose where the impugned notice was issued and the reply was considered. The pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C was unsustainable because the show-cause notice lacked adequate particulars for meaningful comparison with cited sale instances, the authority acknowledged superior location differences, and it did not apply a consistent approach to tenancy and conversion charges. The record also failed to show the positive, objective satisfaction required to conclude that the property was undervalued by more than 15 per cent. The impugned orders were therefore liable to be quashed. en-us Wed, 19 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:23:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17659 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was attracted because part of the cause of action arose where the impugned notice was issued and the reply was considered. The pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C was unsustainable because the show-cause notice lacked adequate particulars for meaningful comparison with cited sale instances, the authority acknowledged superior location differences, and it did not apply a consistent approach to tenancy and conversion charges. The record also failed to show the positive, objective satisfaction required to conclude that the property was undervalued by more than 15 per cent. The impugned orders were therefore liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17659