HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Appropriate Authority and Another v. Kailash Suneja and Another
Civil Appeal Nos. 6050-6051 of 1998
[2001] Supp 1 SCR 343 ·
Income-tax Act, 1961: Chapter XX-C · Constitution of India: Articles 226 and 136
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by S. Rajendra Babu, J. · S. Rajendra Babu, J. · K. G. Balakrishnan, J.
Assessment years: Property transfer statement filed 9 July 1993
01 · Facts of the case
The respondents agreed to sell an approximately 800-square-yard, two-floor tenanted Delhi property for Rs.79 lakh and filed Form 37-I. The Appropriate Authority compared three other properties, treated the consideration as 24% below fair market value and ordered pre-emptive purchase (SCR pp.343-345; PDF pp.1-3).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Although a reasonable valuation method based on germane material is not reappraised as an appeal, the authority used vacant-property comparisons, unsupported monthly appreciation and tenant-vacation assumptions, and unexplained different methods for comparable tenanted properties. Article 226 review could address those defects in the reasoning process (SCR pp.345-350; PDF pp.3-8).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court declined to disturb the High Court's setting aside of the purchase action, dismissed both appeals and made no costs order (SCR p.350; PDF p.8).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the respondents on judicial review; the Court did not determine a substitute fair market value (SCR pp.349-350; PDF pp.7-8).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: support each comparable and adjustment with evidence and explain departures from methods used for similar property. Frame review around rationality and process, not a fresh merits valuation (based on SCR pp.349-350; PDF pp.7-8).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 8-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 8-page count match catalogue asset S_2001_1_343_350; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated case identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
Chapter XX-C was a historical pre-emptive purchase regime; no current property-transfer or valuation rule is represented.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.