https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26834 In Chapter XX-A acquisition proceedings, service of notices under section 269D(2)(a) before publication of the Gazette notice under section 269D(1) was not treated as vitiating jurisdiction on the facts noted, and that objection was rejected. The valuation exercise was held unsustainable because the Tribunal failed to address the objection that separately transferred shares required separate valuation, ignored the relevance of locality in fixing fair market value, and wrongly excluded comparable transactions merely because no acquisition proceedings had been started against them. The valuation was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh determination on the merits and in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:09:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26834 In Chapter XX-A acquisition proceedings, service of notices under section 269D(2)(a) before publication of the Gazette notice under section 269D(1) was not treated as vitiating jurisdiction on the facts noted, and that objection was rejected. The valuation exercise was held unsustainable because the Tribunal failed to address the objection that separately transferred shares required separate valuation, ignored the relevance of locality in fixing fair market value, and wrongly excluded comparable transactions merely because no acquisition proceedings had been started against them. The valuation was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh determination on the merits and in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26834