HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Unitech Ltd. and another v. Union of India and another
Civil Appeal No. 430 of 2007
[2015] 12 SCR 992 ·
Income-tax Act, 1961: sections 269UA, 269UC and 269UD(1) (historical Chapter XX-C)
Holding and result. The collaboration arrangement enabled enjoyment of the leasehold property and was a transfer within section 269UA. Nevertheless, the pre-emptive-purchase order failed because the authority confused land area with available FSI, assumed a transfer of 78 percent built-up area without evidence and relied on an unsuitable residential comparison.
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench; judgment delivered by S. A. Bobde, J. · Madan B. Lokur, J. · S. A. Bobde, J.
01 · Facts of the case
Vidarbha Engineering held three Nagpur plots on a 30-year lease and engaged Unitech to construct a commercial complex at Unitech’s cost. Unitech would retain 78 percent of the completed area and the landholder would receive 22 percent. After Form 37-I disclosed consideration of Rs.1,00,40,000, the appropriate authority alleged more than 15 percent undervaluation and ordered purchase under section 269UD.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The broad Chapter XX-C definition covered an arrangement enabling enjoyment of immovable property, so the development collaboration was a transfer even though it was not a sale, exchange or lease. But the valuation exercise treated the stated land consideration as consideration for the available FSI, assumed without evidence that the landholder transferred 78 percent of the built-up area, and compared a large industrial plot with a much smaller residential plot while rejecting a same-locality comparison.
Source: Primary judgment: reasoning
03 · Judicial decision
A difference exceeding 15 percent could raise a rebuttable presumption of attempted tax evasion, but a separate express allegation or finding of evasion was not a universal sine qua non. Here the factual and comparative-valuation errors were gross, the order was perverse, and the High Court had not addressed the relevance of the competing sale instances.
Source: Primary judgment: holdings
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
The appeal was allowed. The Bombay High Court’s order dated 20 February 2004 and the appropriate authority’s section 269UD(1) order dated 29 July 1994 were set aside, with no order as to costs.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: in a historical Chapter XX-C development arrangement, separate the threshold question whether contractual rights enable enjoyment of property from the later valuation inquiry. A broad transfer definition does not cure a defective purchase order. The authority must identify the asset and consideration correctly, compare genuinely comparable properties and allow rebuttal of the undervaluation presumption.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 17-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected, from the reported opening page through the operative disposition.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and 17-page count verified; every page was read and visually inspected.
Statutory scope
Chapter XX-C and its pre-emptive-purchase provisions are historical. Verify the current statute, amendments and later judicial treatment before relying on the reasoning in another setting.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive later-treatment or present-law clearance is represented. This note reports a historical Chapter XX-C ruling from the identified primary report only.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from the identified primary report and has not been represented as independently human-reviewed.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, governing statutory version and subsequent judicial treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding, and no current-law clearance is claimed.