2017 (1) TMI 1437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Judicial Member) This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2008-09 arises against CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad's order dated 11.06.2012 in appeal no. CIT(A)- VI/DCIT.CIR.2/294/10-11 upholding Assessing Officer's action disallowing interest of Rs. 5,21,584/- claimed as cost of acquisition of the capital assets in question, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act"....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the impugned capital asset cannot be taken to be cost of acquisition of asset. 3. The assessee preferred appeal. He quoted various judgments i.e. CIT vs. Mithileshkumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Delhi) holding that such an interest claim is in the nature of cost of acquisition. His second precedent was Addl.CIT vs. K. S. Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 (AP) and CIT vs. K. Raja Gopala Rao (2001) 252 ITR 459 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he above stated precedents are of non jurisdiction high court and pertain to Income Tax Act in its earlier avtar of 1922. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions. The question before us as to whether cost of acquisition of a capital asset u/s.48 clause (ii) includes interest amount qua the borrowed funds used for purchasing the same. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Representative fails to rebut this factual position. We further notice that this tribunal co-ordinate bench decision in ACIT vs. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. (2007) 118 ITD 1 (Pune) relies upon hon'ble Bombay high court's decision in CIT vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom.) to hold that even judgments of hon'ble non jurisdictional high courts bind this tribunal. The CIT(A)'....