<?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>1996 (7) TMI 130 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18191</link>
    <description>A development agreement for construction of a building complex can fall within Chapter XXC where it involves demolition, redevelopment, allocation of built-up area, and rights in common areas, bringing it within the extended statutory concepts of immovable property and transfer. However, a pre-emptive purchase order cannot stand if it treats the transaction as acquisition of a segregated physical portion not covered by the agreement and if consideration is not tendered within the mandatory statutory framework for payment and possession. The proceedings were found not to violate natural justice because notice and opportunity to respond were afforded within the statutory schedule.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:48:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57191" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 130 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18191</link>
      <description>A development agreement for construction of a building complex can fall within Chapter XXC where it involves demolition, redevelopment, allocation of built-up area, and rights in common areas, bringing it within the extended statutory concepts of immovable property and transfer. However, a pre-emptive purchase order cannot stand if it treats the transaction as acquisition of a segregated physical portion not covered by the agreement and if consideration is not tendered within the mandatory statutory framework for payment and possession. The proceedings were found not to violate natural justice because notice and opportunity to respond were afforded within the statutory schedule.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>