https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22138 A mere agreement-holder under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act lacked locus standi to challenge a pre-emptive purchase order because a contract for sale does not create any interest in immovable property, and the procedural service of copies under sections 269UD and 269UL did not confer substantive rights. Acceptance of the contractual refund of advance after compulsory purchase also amounted to acquiescence, so the transferee could not later ignore the refund clause or invoke section 269UG to continue the challenge. The writ appeal therefore failed on both standing and acquiescence grounds. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:00:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22138 A mere agreement-holder under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act lacked locus standi to challenge a pre-emptive purchase order because a contract for sale does not create any interest in immovable property, and the procedural service of copies under sections 269UD and 269UL did not confer substantive rights. Acceptance of the contractual refund of advance after compulsory purchase also amounted to acquiescence, so the transferee could not later ignore the refund clause or invoke section 269UG to continue the challenge. The writ appeal therefore failed on both standing and acquiescence grounds. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 20 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22138