https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28835 In valuation-based acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A, the rental method was accepted as a legally permissible basis for property under rent control, and the acquisition of Smt. Phoolmati's portion failed because the fair market value did not exceed the apparent consideration by more than 15%. For Asharfi Lal Gupta's portion, the statutory presumption under section 269C(2)(a) arose because the value gap exceeded 25%, and it was not rebutted because the Tribunal relied on irrelevant, inadmissible, and conjectural material rather than evidence directed to the true fetchable price. One part of the acquisition was therefore set aside and the other sustained. en-us Thu, 21 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:23:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28835 In valuation-based acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A, the rental method was accepted as a legally permissible basis for property under rent control, and the acquisition of Smt. Phoolmati's portion failed because the fair market value did not exceed the apparent consideration by more than 15%. For Asharfi Lal Gupta's portion, the statutory presumption under section 269C(2)(a) arose because the value gap exceeded 25%, and it was not rebutted because the Tribunal relied on irrelevant, inadmissible, and conjectural material rather than evidence directed to the true fetchable price. One part of the acquisition was therefore set aside and the other sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 21 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28835