9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e common and identical issues and therefore they are being disposed of together. 2. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the order dated 25.01.1994 under section 269UD (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). By virtue of the impugned order the appropriate authority had come to the conclusion that the apparent consideration of the property in question was under stated by 27%, as compared to the property at E-23 East of Kailash, New Delhi, and by 33%, when compared to the property at E-124, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Consequently, the order for pre-emptive purchase of the property in question under section 269UD (1) of the said Act was passed. 3. The property in question is E-41, East of Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. Fourthly, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the methodology adopted for computing the market value of the comparable property was also wrong. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that even if all the contentions are kept aside and the sale instance in respect of E-23, East of Kailash, New Delhi, itself is taken into account, the difference between the apparent consideration and the said sale instance value would be less than 15% and therefore the pre-emptive purchase could not have been ordered. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue also on the aforesaid aspects. However, we feel that the last point urged by the petitioner clinches the issue in their favour. It is an admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the possession of the owner/vendor. However, there is no material placed before us to indicate as to whether the fact that a small portion of the property at E-23, East of Kailash, New Delhi, was tenanted would result in any alteration in the valuation indicated in the sale deed itself. Therefore, there is no necessity for us to examine what would have been the fair market value of E-23, East of Kailash, New Delhi, had it been wholly vacant. Once, the respondents have accepted the sale consideration in respect of E-23, East of Kailash, New Delhi, as being comparable to the sale in respect of the property in question, all that we have to see is the consideration in the two instances. We have already indicated above that, comparing the two va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
