https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383758 Valuation-based pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XXC was upheld because the authority's findings on location, commercial potential, comparable sales and existing structures were supported by relevant material and were neither arbitrary nor perverse, so the challenge failed. Directions on disbursement of fixed-deposit proceeds were set aside because the statutory mechanism under Section 269UG(4) required the appropriate authority to decide investment and payment of the deposited consideration; the High Court should not have made those directions in the first instance. The buyers' appeals failed, while the Union's appeal succeeded to that limited extent. en-us Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2019 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383758 Valuation-based pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XXC was upheld because the authority's findings on location, commercial potential, comparable sales and existing structures were supported by relevant material and were neither arbitrary nor perverse, so the challenge failed. Directions on disbursement of fixed-deposit proceeds were set aside because the statutory mechanism under Section 269UG(4) required the appropriate authority to decide investment and payment of the deposited consideration; the High Court should not have made those directions in the first instance. The buyers' appeals failed, while the Union's appeal succeeded to that limited extent. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383758