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

..... section 269UD(I) for a net consideration of ₹ 69 lakh on 23.02.1995 as property value was undervalued by more than 15% - Held that:- We find from the judgment of the High Court [2005 (11) TMI 51 - BOMBAY High Court ] while quashing the aforesaid action of the Revenue, that the High Court has come to a categorical finding that there were lots of dissimilarities between Sale Instance Property .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant : Mr. A.K.Panda,Sr.Adv., Ms. Niranjana Singh,Adv., Ms. Rashmi Malhotra,Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar,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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erty value was undervalued by more than 15%. Respondents contended that apparent consideration which had been undervalued 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 fai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X