Tribunal („ITAT‟) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for „extraneous consideration‟ is not
perverse and contrary to the record ... conclusion of the ITAT that the payment was made
for „extraneous consideration‟ appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures.
29. The mere fact that
compensation
of Rs. 1,18,38,705/- was paid for "extraneous consideration" is not
perverse and contrary to the record ... Tribunal („ITAT‟) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for „extraneous consideration‟ is not
perverse and contrary to the record
Tribunal („ITAT‟) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for „extraneous consideration‟ is not
perverse and contrary to the record ... conclusion of the ITAT that the payment was made
for „extraneous consideration‟ appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures.
29. The mere fact that
Tribunal („ITAT‟) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for „extraneous consideration‟ is not
perverse and contrary to the record ... conclusion of the ITAT that the payment was made
for „extraneous consideration‟ appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures.
29. The mere fact that
Tribunal („ITAT‟) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for „extraneous consideration‟ is not
perverse and contrary to the record ... conclusion of the ITAT that the payment was made
for „extraneous consideration‟ appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures.
29. The mere fact that
Tribunal („ITAT‟) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for „extraneous consideration‟ is not
perverse and contrary to the record ... conclusion of the ITAT that the payment was made
for „extraneous consideration‟ appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures.
29. The mere fact that
Tribunal („ITAT‟) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for „extraneous consideration‟ is not
perverse and contrary to the record ... conclusion of the ITAT that the payment was made
for „extraneous consideration‟ appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures.
29. The mere fact that
Tribunal („ITAT‟) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for „extraneous consideration‟ is not
perverse and contrary to the record ... conclusion of the ITAT that the payment was made
for „extraneous consideration‟ appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures.
29. The mere fact that
Tribunal („ITAT‟) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for „extraneous consideration‟ is not
perverse and contrary to the record ... conclusion of the ITAT that the payment was made
for „extraneous consideration‟ appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures.
29. The mere fact that
Tribunal („ITAT‟) that the
compensation of Rs.11838705 was paid for „extraneous consideration‟ is not
perverse and contrary to the record ... conclusion of the ITAT that the payment was made
for „extraneous consideration‟ appears to be based on surmises and
conjectures.
29. The mere fact that
