https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38118 A notice initiating acquisition proceedings under section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act was treated as premature because the vendor's title to the property had not yet been finally settled. The petitioner's title depended on the outcome of pending proceedings to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so the existence of a perfected title remained under adjudication when the notice was issued. Acquisition proceedings founded on an established title cannot proceed before that title becomes definite. The notice was therefore unsustainable, and relief was granted to the petitioner. en-us Wed, 17 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:38:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38118 A notice initiating acquisition proceedings under section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act was treated as premature because the vendor's title to the property had not yet been finally settled. The petitioner's title depended on the outcome of pending proceedings to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so the existence of a perfected title remained under adjudication when the notice was issued. Acquisition proceedings founded on an established title cannot proceed before that title becomes definite. The notice was therefore unsustainable, and relief was granted to the petitioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38118