2012 (10) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10, the assessee has claimed Rs. 1,16,00,000/- and Rs. 1,04,00,000/- as liaison charges respectively. Though the Tribunal has passed four separate orders, the reasoning is identical. 3. These four assessees jointly agreed to provide an extent of 2,27,000 sq. ft. of land to M/s. Purvankara Projects Ltd. Originally, the price agreed upon was Rs. 22,00,00,000/-. However, as there were some huts/slums on those lands, the purchaser was not prepared to take the land and get it registered with those slum dwellers and insisted for their removal. The dispute arose between the parties. The dispute was referred to arbitration. An agreement of arbitral award came to be passed on 23.02.2006 enhancing the total consideration to Rs. 32.20 crores and ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n charges, which is apportioned to the long-term capital gains. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Assessing Authority on the ground that absolutely there is no basis for such apportionment and deleted the disallowance. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which has confirmed the said order. It is against those two orders, the revenue is in appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the revenue assailing the impugned order contends that the assessee has not produced any material to show that in the sites which resulted in short-term capital gains, only slum dwellers were there. As....