<?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>1995 (3) TMI 29 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18784</link>
    <description>An order for pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C had to be based on relevant material and on recorded grounds showing that the apparent consideration was understated by more than 15 per cent. The statutory scheme required a reasonable opportunity of hearing and a speaking order stating the basis for the conclusion. Here, the only comparable sale relied on involved a composite property with basement, ground and first floors, while the subject property was only a first-floor unit; the order itself acknowledged that floor-wise rates differ materially. Because no material was recorded showing the prevailing market rate for a first-floor commercial property in the locality, the order did not satisfy the statutory requirements and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:33:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 29 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18784</link>
      <description>An order for pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C had to be based on relevant material and on recorded grounds showing that the apparent consideration was understated by more than 15 per cent. The statutory scheme required a reasonable opportunity of hearing and a speaking order stating the basis for the conclusion. Here, the only comparable sale relied on involved a composite property with basement, ground and first floors, while the subject property was only a first-floor unit; the order itself acknowledged that floor-wise rates differ materially. Because no material was recorded showing the prevailing market rate for a first-floor commercial property in the locality, the order did not satisfy the statutory requirements and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18784</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>