https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18447 The court analyzed challenges to an order under section 269UD for property purchase, focusing on undervaluation and non-payment issues. It found the order lacking in establishing undervaluation or tax evasion, deeming it erroneous. Additionally, it ruled that non-payment of the purchase price abrogated the order under section 269UH due to non-compliance with deposit requirements. Emphasizing the distinction between depositing and tendering the purchase price, the court quashed the order, returning the property to the original owner and mandating a no objection certificate issuance for sale deed execution. en-us Tue, 19 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:18:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18447 The court analyzed challenges to an order under section 269UD for property purchase, focusing on undervaluation and non-payment issues. It found the order lacking in establishing undervaluation or tax evasion, deeming it erroneous. Additionally, it ruled that non-payment of the purchase price abrogated the order under section 269UH due to non-compliance with deposit requirements. Emphasizing the distinction between depositing and tendering the purchase price, the court quashed the order, returning the property to the original owner and mandating a no objection certificate issuance for sale deed execution. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18447