M/s. Parshwanath Farm, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-7, Ahmedabad

ITA 78/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 7820514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: M G PATEL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Competent authority

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, D BENCH , , , , ! ! ! ! . .. . . .. .#$%& #$%& #$%& #$%&, , , , ' ' ' ' , ( ( ( ( BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.4359/AHD/2007 : [ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005] ITA NO.78/AHD/2010 : [ASSTT.YEAR : 2001-2002] ITA NO.2842/AHD/2010 : [ASSTT.YEAR : 2000-2001] PARSHWANATH FARM DHORIBHAI PARK SOLA ROAD, NARANGPURA AHMEDABAD. /VS. ACIT, CIR.7 AHMEDABAD. ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ./ 0 1 / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.G. PATEL 3 0 1 / REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV 45 0 /6'/ DATE OF HEARING : 18 TH JANUARY, 2012 7$8 0 /6'/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.03.2012 / O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD DATED 16.10.2007, CIT(A)-XI, DATED 7.12.2009 AND THE CIT(A)-XVI, DATE D 01.09.2010 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN T HESE APPEALS, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FI RST WE TAKE UP ITA.NO.4359/AHD/2007. ITA NO.4359/AHD/2007; ITA NO.78/AHD/2010; ITA NO.2842/AHD/2010 -2- 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT OF T HE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF BANAKHAT CANC ELLATION CHARGES OF RS.6,77,029/- AND AMOUNT PAID TO LAND OWNERS OF RS.3,00,000/- WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND ACCO RDINGLY HAS CONFIRMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.8,81,866/- A S COMPUTED BY AO AS AGAINST LOSS OF RS.95,163/- COMPUTED BY THE A PPELLANT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED BY THE AO IN PARA-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED BANAKHAT CANCELLATION CHARGES OF RS.6,77,029/- AND RS.3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYME NT MADE TO LAND OWNERS, TO THE COST OF TRANSFER OF THE LAND. THE A O ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH REASONS AS TO WHY THESE TWO ADDITIONS SHOUL D BE ALLOWED IN THE COST OF TRANSFER OF LANDS. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THIS LAND AND FOR THIS PURPOSE A BANAKHAT WAS EXECUTED ON 25-9-1996 AND ADVANCE OF RS.25,00,000/- WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO F URTHER NOTED THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE AGREEMENT, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE O NUS WAS ON THE PURCHASER TO PAY ANY AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL F ROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER OF THIS LAND IN THE NAME OF THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER. HE ALSO NOTED THAT IT WAS ALSO MENTION ED IN THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT THAT IN ANY CASE, IF THE APPROVAL WAS NOT OBTAINED, THEN THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO G ET EXECUTED THE SALE DEED IN THEIR FAVOUR. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS A BANAKHAT CANCELLATION AGREEMENT SIGNED ON 20-12-1997 AND ON GOING THROUGH THE AGREEMENT, IT WAS SEEN THAT THIS AGREEM ENT WAS EXECUTED BECAUSE OF NOT GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER THIS LAND TO THE NAMES OF THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER . IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED THE ADVANCE OF RS.25,00,0 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION OF BANAKHAT, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT HAS ALSO PAID COMPENSATION OF RS.20 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLA TION OF BANAKHAT. IT ITA NO.4359/AHD/2007; ITA NO.78/AHD/2010; ITA NO.2842/AHD/2010 -3- WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT CA NCELLATION CHARGES WITH RESPECT TO LAND WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD IN THIS YEAR WA S RS.6,77,029/- OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/-. THE AO WAS NOT CON VINCED. THE AO HAS STATED THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE WAS NO LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY ANY CANCELLATION CHARGES, IN CASE THE LANDS ARE NOT TRANSFERRED TO IN THE NAM E OF THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER. HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. THE SECOND ISSUE IS REGARDING PAYMENT OF RS.3,00,000/- TO THE LAND OWNE RS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SOME LEGAL ISSUES ABOUT OWNERSHIP RIGHT CLAIMED BY THE LEGAL HEIRS AN D THUS THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN ORDER TO GET CLEAR TITLE OF THE LAND. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THIS WAS A MERE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT CORRO BORATED BY ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT SOME LEGAL ISSUES HAD REALLY AROSE. ON THIS BASIS, HE DISALLOWED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE PAYM ENT OF RS.3,00,000/- ALSO. HE COMPUTED CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.8,81,866/- AS AGAINST THE CAPITAL LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.95,1 63/-. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATER BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS.48 TO 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE BANAKHAT CANCELLATION AGREEMENT IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS.55 TO 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK. REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF RS.3,00,000/- , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AFFIDAVIT AND UNDERTAKING OF THE CONCERNED PERSONS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.59 TO 69 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT IS AN EVIDENCE TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF COM PENSATION AND ACTUAL PAYMENT IS NOT DENIED. THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BE TWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND PERSON TO WHOM THE BANAKHAT CANCELLATION CHARGES WERE PAID. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SECTIONS 73 AND 74 OF THE IND IAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872, COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE FOR THE LOSS OR DAMAGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT. HE ITA NO.4359/AHD/2007; ITA NO.78/AHD/2010; ITA NO.2842/AHD/2010 -4- PLACED RELIANCE ON TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHAKUNTALA KANTILAL, 190 ITR 56 AND CIT VS. ABRAR ALVI, 247 ITR 312. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY COMPENSATION AS PER THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND ALSO THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT AS PER CLAUSE-5 OF THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.52 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE TITLE CLEARANCE CERTIF ICATE AND ALSO THE LAND POSSESS MARKETABLE WAY WILL BE OBTAINED BY THE PART Y OF THE SECOND PART I.E. BUYER AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. AS PER CLAUSE-6 OF THE AGREEMENT, IN CASE OF NON-EXECUTION OF SALE DEED/CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT, AN D IF ANY EXPENSES IS REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED ON THIS COUNT, THE SAME SHO ULD BE BORNE BY THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART I.E. THE PURCHASER NOT BY THE AS SESSEE. THERE IS NO CLAUSE IN THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT AS PER WHICH ANY COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS IN CASE THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO EXECUTE THE CONVEYANCE DEED. AS PER THE BANAKHAT CANCELLATION AGREEMENT, THE PURCHASING PARTY TERMINATED THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE BANAKHAT CANCELLATION IS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BY TH E PURCHASING PARTY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLAUSE IN THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF ANY COMPENSATION AT THE TIME OF CANCELLA TION OF BANAKHAT AGREEMENT, IT GOES TO SHOW THAT THIS PAYMENT IS NOT RELATED WITH BANAKHAT AGREEMENT. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE BANAKHAT CANCELLATION AGREEMENT THAT ON CANCELLATION OF BANAKHAT AGREEMENT, BUYER WILL BE PUT TO HEAVY FINANCIAL LOSS AND THEREFORE, BOTH THE PARTIES AGRE E THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL RETURN THE AMOUNT TAKEN FROM THE BUYER AND THE BUYE R WILL CANCEL THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT ON RECEIPT OF ADHOC COMPENSATION OF RS.2 0 LAKHS. THIS CLAUSE ALSO GOES TO SHOW THAT THE COMPENSATION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.4359/AHD/2007; ITA NO.78/AHD/2010; ITA NO.2842/AHD/2010 -5- 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 N OT 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 PAYMEN T MADE TO RETAIN THE LANDS AND IN ANY CASE, IT CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COST OF TRANSFER OF LAND, WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE CO MPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IN TOTAL ACQUISITION COST. REGARDING THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHAKUNTALA KANTILAL (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THIS CASE, THE SELLER DID NOT EXECUT E AGREEMENT AND BUYER FILED A SUIT AGAINST THE SELLER IN BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, AND IT WAS THE REQUEST BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT EITHER SELLER SHOULD BE ASKED TO PERFORM THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE O R IN THE ALTERNATIVE, COMPENSATION SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE BUYER AND IN THESE FACTS, THE SELLER AGREED TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TO THE BUYER AND SUC H COMPENSATION WAS ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE CAPITAL GAIN WHEN T HE LAND WAS ACTUALLY SOLD THEREAFTER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY ANY COMPENSATION AS PER THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT, AND IT IS NOT THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS OPTED OUT FROM THE BANAKHAT AGREEMENT AND IT IS THE BUYER ON WHOSE BEHEST THE BANAKHAT CANCELLATION AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED AND BECAUSE OF THIS DIFFEREN CE IN FACT, THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. THE SECOND JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ABRAR ALVI (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO N OT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE, BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE THERE WAS ACRIMONIOUS DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SO N, WHO HAD FILED A SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE TRANSFER. THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.8 L AKHS TO HIS SON TO EFFECT THE ITA NO.4359/AHD/2007; ITA NO.78/AHD/2010; ITA NO.2842/AHD/2010 -6- TRANSFER. IN THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRI BUNAL 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 T HE ASSESSEE BY PAYING COMPENSATION ON CANCELLATION OF BANAKHAT AGREEMENT OR BY PAYING COMPENSATION OF RS.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 THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. REGARDING SECOND ASPECT I.E. REGARDING PAYMENT O F RS.3,00,000/- TO THE LAND OWNERS, WE FIND THAT THIS CLAIM WAS REJECT ED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE WI TH REGARD TO ALLEGED EXPENSES TOWARDS THE LEGAL MATTERS, WHICH HAS BEEN STATED TO HAVE ENHANCED THE COST OF LAND. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), NO EV IDENCE AS SUCH COULD BE PRODUCED. BEFORE US, AFFIDAVIT AND UNDERTAKING OF 17 PERSONS IS FURNISHED AT PAGE NOS.59 TO 69 OF THE PAPER BOOKS. BUT THIS IS REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SUM OF RS.3,00,000/- AND NOT AN EVIDENCE TOWARDS ANY LEGAL DISPUTE FOR SETTLEMENT OF WHICH, THIS AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- I S PAID TO THESE PERSONS. HENCE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) O N THIS ISSUE ALSO. 7. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO.4359/AHD/2007 IS DISMISSED . ITA NO.78/AHD/2010 8. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FA CTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO OF INTERE ST PAYMENT OF RS.43,22,153/- PAID TO PARTNERS AND DEPOSITORS AS C OST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND. ITA NO.4359/AHD/2007; ITA NO.78/AHD/2010; ITA NO.2842/AHD/2010 -7- 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FAC TS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO OF BANAKH AT CANCELLATION CHARGES OF RS.12,87,352/- AS COST OF A CQUISITION OF LAND. 9. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THIS ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 ABOVE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE IN A.Y.2004-2005 AN D THE SAME MAY BE DECIDED ON THE SIMILAR LINE. IN THAT YEAR, WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, IN THIS YEAR ALSO THE GROUN D NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS REJECTED. 10. REGARDING GROUND NO.1, IT IS NOTED BY THE AO TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDED THE INTEREST PAID TO THE PARTNERS AND DEPOSIT ORS FOR THE FUNDS USED FOR ACQUIRING LAND AND CLAIMED THAT IT INCREASED THE CO ST OF THE LAND AND THE SAME WAS CONSTRUED AS EXPENDITURE WHILE COMPUTING T HE CAPITAL GAIN. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS JUDG MENTS. BUT THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED. REGARDING VARIOUS JUDGMENTS CIT ED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THERE IS AMENDMENT IN S ECTION 48 AND SECTION 55 W.E.F. 1-4-1988 WHICH HAD BROUGHT OUT THE CONCEP TUAL CHANGE IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. HE OBSERVED THAT THE DECIS IONS CITED BY THE LEARNED AR WERE GIVEN BEFORE THE CONCEPT OF INDEXED COST WAS BROUGHT INTO THE STATUTE. THEREFORE, THESE DECISIONS ARE DISTINGUIS HABLE. HE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT. BEING AGGRIEV ED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), BUT WITHOUT S UCCESS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE INTEREST ON CAPITAL WAS PAID TO THE PARTNERS AS PER PARTNERSHIP DEED AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUT E REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO THE PARTNERS, THEREFORE, THE SAME SH OULD BE ALLOWED, AND ADDED TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.4359/AHD/2007; ITA NO.78/AHD/2010; ITA NO.2842/AHD/2010 -8- 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE T HROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD AND VARIOUS JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE B EFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. COPIES OF THESE JUDGMENTS ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 48, THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS, COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND COST OF TRANSFER. THE INTEREST PAI D FOR THE FUNDS USED FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COST OF ACQUISITION OR COST OF IMPROVEMENT OR COST OF TRANSFER. IT MAY BE CONSIDE RED AS CARRYING COST, BUT NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE IN THIS REGARD AS PER SEC TION 48 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. IN FACT, CARRYING COS T IS TAKEN CARE OF BY WAY OF ALLOWING INDEXATION BENEFIT WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE JUDGMENTS CITED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE B EEN RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING APPLIC ABLE PRIOR TO THE CONCEPT OF INDEXATION OF COST. IN THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE, AND ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED. 13. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.2842/AHD/20 10. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FA CTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,08,333/- BE ING INTEREST PAYMENT- PAID TO PARTNERS AND DEPOSITORS CLAIM AGAI NST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LANDS. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FAC TS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.75,00,000/- OF BANAKHAT CANCELLATION CHARGES WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LANDS. 14. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT BOTH THE G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.4359/AHD/2007; ITA NO.78/AHD/2010; ITA NO.2842/AHD/2010 -9- A.Y.2001-2002 AND THE SAME MAY BE DECIDED ON THE SI MILAR LINE. IN THAT YEAR, BOTH THE ISSUES ARE DECIDED BY US AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, AND ACCORDINGLY, IN THIS YEAR ALSO, BOTH THE GROUNDS AR E REJECTED. 15. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- ( /BHAVNESH SAINI) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . .. . . .. .#$%& #$%& #$%& #$%& /A.K. GARODIA) ' ' ' ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ORDER PRONOUNCED SD./- (KB)JM SD./-(AKG)AM C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 06-03-2012 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER. : 12-03-2012 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S : 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT. : 21/3/2012 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. : 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK. : 26/3/2012 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. : 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. : 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER :