https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19086 Pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C could not be sustained without a definite determination of the property's fair market value on relevant material and comparable instances. A bare assertion that the apparent consideration was understated by more than 15% was insufficient where the notice and final order did not disclose the fair market value, the adjustment for time lag, or the basis for comparing sale instances. The absence of a reasoned valuation finding showed non-application of mind, so the Gujarat HC quashed the order under section 269UD(1) and granted relief to the petitioners. en-us Thu, 09 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:20:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19086 Pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C could not be sustained without a definite determination of the property's fair market value on relevant material and comparable instances. A bare assertion that the apparent consideration was understated by more than 15% was insufficient where the notice and final order did not disclose the fair market value, the adjustment for time lag, or the basis for comparing sale instances. The absence of a reasoned valuation finding showed non-application of mind, so the Gujarat HC quashed the order under section 269UD(1) and granted relief to the petitioners. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19086