https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18346 Where co-owners had already partitioned property by metes and bounds and each vendor transferred a separately identified share for separately stated consideration, the pre-emptive acquisition provisions under section 269UD had to be applied share-wise, not by aggregating independent transfers because they were recorded in one agreement. The Delhi HC held that Chapter XX-C operated on the value of the interest actually transferred, so the smaller shares could not be treated as one composite transfer merely due to a single document. Section 269UD(1) could still apply to the larger share whose consideration crossed the statutory threshold, and the acquisition order was therefore sustained only to that extent. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:56:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18346 Where co-owners had already partitioned property by metes and bounds and each vendor transferred a separately identified share for separately stated consideration, the pre-emptive acquisition provisions under section 269UD had to be applied share-wise, not by aggregating independent transfers because they were recorded in one agreement. The Delhi HC held that Chapter XX-C operated on the value of the interest actually transferred, so the smaller shares could not be treated as one composite transfer merely due to a single document. Section 269UD(1) could still apply to the larger share whose consideration crossed the statutory threshold, and the acquisition order was therefore sustained only to that extent. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18346