As per case facts, a double-storied building in Bangalore was subjected to a pre-emptive purchase by the Appropriate Authority under the Income Tax Act due to suspected undervaluation. The initial ... order for purchase was challenged in the High Court and then appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside the High Court's decision based on a constitutional bench ruling. Following this, the Appropriate Authority conducted a fresh hearing and again ordered the pre-emptive purchase, reaffirming the undervaluation and vesting of the property in the Central Government. This subsequent order was challenged, arguing that the property should have revested in the transferors, necessitating a completely new proceeding, and also questioning the discounted valuation and alleged illegal deductions. The question arose whether, after the Supreme Court had set aside the earlier High Court judgment on the pre-emptive purchase, the property revested in the transferors, requiring a de novo proceeding, and if the Appropriate Authority's subsequent order, including its valuation and deductions, was valid. Finally, the Supreme Court found no serious flaw in the Appropriate Authority's order passed after the remand. It rejected the argument that the property revested in the transferor, clarifying that its prior order did not mandate starting proceedings afresh from an earlier stage. The court affirmed that the property had already vested in the Central Government, and this status remained unchanged. It also upheld the discounted value calculation and deductions, noting that the transferor had accepted the balance consideration and delivered possession. Consequently, the appeals and transfer cases challenging the Authority's order were dismissed.