9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be attributable to the cost of transfer of land, which has been added in the computation of capital gain in total acquisition cost. – Decided against Assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1182/AHD/2011 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2014 - Shri D. K. Tyagi, J. M. And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Aarti Shah For the Respondent : Shri A. K. Pandey, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad dated 29.03.2011 for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 3. Assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the construction business. Assessee filed its return of income for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-05 upheld the order of A.O and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us, at the outset ld. A.R. submitted that on identical facts in earlier years Assessee had preferred appeal before Hon ble ITAT. Hon ble ITAT vide order dated 21.03.2012 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. She therefore submitted that since the facts of the case in the year under appeal are identical to that of earlier years, the issue be decided against the Assessee. The ld. D.R. did not object to the submissions of the ld. A.R. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that in ITA No. 4359/AHD/2007 for A.Y. 04-05 identical issue was before H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of banakhat agreement, buyer will be put to heavy financial loss and therefore, both the parties agree that the assessee will return the amount taken from the buyer and the buyer will cancel the banakhat agreement on receipt of adhoc compensation of ₹ 20 lakhs. This clause also goes to show that the compensation was given by the assessee to the buyer in view of heavy financial loss to be incurred by the buyer on cancellation of banakhat agreement, but the cancellation of banakhat agreement was at the behest of the buyer only and not at the behest of the seller, and in these facts, we feel that the AO has rightly held that these payments of banakhat cancellation charges cannot be construed as payment made to retain the lands and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, because the facts are different. In that case there was acrimonious dispute between the assessee and his son, who had filed a suit to restrain the transfer. The assessee paid ₹ 8 lakhs to his son to effect the transfer. In these facts, it was held that the Tribunal rightly allowed the expenditure incurred by the assessee to remove the encumbrance to the transfer. In the present case, nothing is brought to show that there was any encumbrance on the transfer, which was removed by the assessee by paying compensation on cancellation of banakhat agreement or by paying compensation of ₹ 3 lakhs and hence, this judgment is also of no help to the assessee. In these facts of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
