https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23355 Jurisdiction under section 269D could not be validly assumed where acquisition proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed time and the record did not show proper publication in the Official Gazette or timely service of notice; the initiation was therefore treated as time-barred. The notice was also defective because it failed to state with sufficient clarity whether the alleged understatement of consideration was intended to avoid tax in the hands of the transferor, the transferee, or both, amounting to non-application of mind and a jurisdictional defect. The acquisition proceedings were held invalid and the writ petition was allowed. en-us Fri, 30 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:47:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23355 Jurisdiction under section 269D could not be validly assumed where acquisition proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed time and the record did not show proper publication in the Official Gazette or timely service of notice; the initiation was therefore treated as time-barred. The notice was also defective because it failed to state with sufficient clarity whether the alleged understatement of consideration was intended to avoid tax in the hands of the transferor, the transferee, or both, amounting to non-application of mind and a jurisdictional defect. The acquisition proceedings were held invalid and the writ petition was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23355