2016 (11) TMI 1373

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv., Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. for the Respondents. ORDER 1. The Assessment Year in question is 1989-1990. The Assessee has been subjected to payment of income-tax on capital gains accruing from land acquisition compensation and sale of land. The dispute is as to how the cost of acquisition is to be worked out for the purposes of deduction of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... April, 1974. 3. The matter reached the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") by way of further appeal by the Assessee. The learned Tribunal took the view that the comparable sales cannot altogether be ignored. Therefore, though the comparable sales were at a higher value of Rs. 70/- per square yard, the learned Tribunal thought it proper to determine the cost of acqu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... per square yard). Comparable sales, if otherwise genuine and proved, cannot be shunted out from the process of consideration of relevant materials. The same had been taken into account by the learned Tribunal which is the last fact finding authority under the Act. Unless such cognizance was palpably incorrect and, therefore, perverse, the High Court should not have interfered with the order of th....