https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368710 The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that the amount paid to discharge the mortgage debt should be considered as the cost of acquisition, following the decision in R.M. Arunachalam vs. CIT. As the assessee did not receive any amount from the sale proceeds, no capital gain arose. The Tribunal also ruled that the indexation benefit should be calculated from the year the father acquired the property, in line with CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the tax demand against the assessee was dismissed. en-us Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:54:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368710 The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that the amount paid to discharge the mortgage debt should be considered as the cost of acquisition, following the decision in R.M. Arunachalam vs. CIT. As the assessee did not receive any amount from the sale proceeds, no capital gain arose. The Tribunal also ruled that the indexation benefit should be calculated from the year the father acquired the property, in line with CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the tax demand against the assessee was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368710