https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18345 Comparable sale instances can justify treating declared consideration as undervalued under Chapter XX-C where they indicate a materially higher market rate and no reliable evidence shows a sufficient market movement to explain the gap. In the same dispute, a flat purchase described in the agreement and contemporaneous Form No. 37-I as a single composite transaction was not converted into separate acquisitions of undivided shares merely by argument, so the jurisdictional objection to Chapter XX-C failed. The pre-emptive purchase challenge was therefore rejected in substance because both undervaluation and applicability of the statutory scheme were sustained. en-us Wed, 02 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:54:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18345 Comparable sale instances can justify treating declared consideration as undervalued under Chapter XX-C where they indicate a materially higher market rate and no reliable evidence shows a sufficient market movement to explain the gap. In the same dispute, a flat purchase described in the agreement and contemporaneous Form No. 37-I as a single composite transaction was not converted into separate acquisitions of undivided shares merely by argument, so the jurisdictional objection to Chapter XX-C failed. The pre-emptive purchase challenge was therefore rejected in substance because both undervaluation and applicability of the statutory scheme were sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18345