https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23425 A challenge to vesting under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act failed because the appellants had no subsisting right, title or interest in the suit premises. They had occupied the flats only as temporary alternate accommodation during construction, and their own letter acknowledged that position; after the occupation certificate was issued, they took possession of the allotted flats. On that footing, the order under section 269UD(1) vested the property in the Central Government free from encumbrances, and the pending constitutional challenges to the statutory provisions did not affect their case. The appeal was dismissed, and the challenge to the statutory acquisition was upheld as unsustainable. en-us Mon, 15 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:49:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23425 A challenge to vesting under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act failed because the appellants had no subsisting right, title or interest in the suit premises. They had occupied the flats only as temporary alternate accommodation during construction, and their own letter acknowledged that position; after the occupation certificate was issued, they took possession of the allotted flats. On that footing, the order under section 269UD(1) vested the property in the Central Government free from encumbrances, and the pending constitutional challenges to the statutory provisions did not affect their case. The appeal was dismissed, and the challenge to the statutory acquisition was upheld as unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23425