https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19384 Transferees could maintain the writ challenge to a Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase order, and defects in the show-cause notice or receipt of refunded part-consideration did not defeat maintainability where no prejudice was shown. The authority's finding of undervaluation was sustained because fair market value was assessed with reference to comparable sales, proximity, locality, and relevant adjustments, and the writ court found no perversity. On deferred consideration, the discounted value had to be computed only from the date payment was tendered, not from the date of the agreement. The purchase order was maintained, with recomputation of consideration on the correct discounting basis. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:50:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19384 Transferees could maintain the writ challenge to a Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase order, and defects in the show-cause notice or receipt of refunded part-consideration did not defeat maintainability where no prejudice was shown. The authority's finding of undervaluation was sustained because fair market value was assessed with reference to comparable sales, proximity, locality, and relevant adjustments, and the writ court found no perversity. On deferred consideration, the discounted value had to be computed only from the date payment was tendered, not from the date of the agreement. The purchase order was maintained, with recomputation of consideration on the correct discounting basis. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19384