https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18789 An authority acting under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act could not refuse a no-objection certificate or declare a development-rights agreement non est on the basis that the transfer allegedly offended the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, because its power was confined to deciding whether to purchase the property or issue clearance and did not extend to adjudicating validity or transferability beyond that scheme. A further remand for rectification under section 269UJ was impermissible, since that provision only permits correction of mistakes apparent from the record and cannot revive a time-barred jurisdiction under the Chapter. The impugned order was quashed and relief granted. en-us Tue, 04 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:46:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18789 An authority acting under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act could not refuse a no-objection certificate or declare a development-rights agreement non est on the basis that the transfer allegedly offended the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, because its power was confined to deciding whether to purchase the property or issue clearance and did not extend to adjudicating validity or transferability beyond that scheme. A further remand for rectification under section 269UJ was impermissible, since that provision only permits correction of mistakes apparent from the record and cannot revive a time-barred jurisdiction under the Chapter. The impugned order was quashed and relief granted. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18789