2007 (9) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... May, 1987 the petitioners agreed to purchase from the respondent No.4 Flat No.111, situated at Warden Road, Mumbai - 400 026 for a consideration of Rs.40 lakhs. On an application made in Form 37-I, the appropriate authority under Income Tax Act passed a purchase order on 20th August, 1987 under section 269UD(1) of the Act without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2891 of 1987 in this Court. By an order dated 17th December, 1992 the said petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 20th August, 1987 and the appropriate authority was directed to decide the issue afresh in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.B.Gautam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside because, firstly, no fair market value of the flat has been determined so as to arrive at a conclusion that in the present case the under valuation was to the extent of 15%. Secondly, the advantages/disadvantages of the flat in question vis-a-vis the sale instances referred to in the impugned order have not been considered. Thirdly, neither a copy nor inspection of the materials relating to sale instances has been provided even though specifically asked and fourthly the sale instance pointed out by the Petitioners have not been considered in the impugned order. In support of the above contentions Mr. Mistry relied upon a decision of this Court in the....