Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (9) TMI 860

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,Adv. For the Respondent ; Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav,Adv., Mr. Anish R.Shah,Adv., Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave,Adv. ORDER Respondent 1 (transferors) and one M/s. Atul Enterprises Pune (Respondent 6) entered into an agreement on 14.11.1994 over the land owned by Petitioners, an open plot of land of 3 hectares and 93 acres in Village Varje, Haveli Taluka, Pune, land was north of National Highway o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by 15% or more than the fair market value was erroneous as first, the Sale Instance Property (SIP) in order of 23.2.1995 was not comparable and second, even on the basis of price of SIP, it was not established that the alleged undervaluation exceeded 15% or more than the fair market value and hence order was liable to be quashed. We find from the judgment of the High Court while quashing the a....