1. Assessing Officer disallowed claim of expenditure of Rs. 18,43,30,378.00 claimed by the assessee.Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of expenditure stating that Section 50B of the Act itself was a separate code and no further deduction was required for the purpose of the said expenditure In computing the net worth of the undertaking or the division, as thecasemay be, the benefit of indexation as provided in the second proviso to section 48 has been withheld. The possible reason may be quid pro quo. By extending the benefit of lower rate of taxation on long term capital gain as provided under section 112 to the undertaking as a whole notwithstanding the fact that there may be several assets held by the assessee for a period of not more than 36 months, the Legislature though it to curtain the benefit of indexation to the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement.” On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. Tribunal was fully justified in confirming the view taken by the First Appellate Authority. In the circumstances, we see no good reason to entertain this question for consideration. 2 .An agreement was entered into between the assessee and Fortis Hospitals Ltd dated 24.8.2009. Clause (3) of the agreement made it clear that Rs. 186.58 crores was the negotiated value to which further adjustment was required to be done incaseliability of the undertaking exceeded Rs. 599.62 crores. On a reading of the above clause of the agreement, it is evident that though lump-sum consideration was fixed at Rs. 186.58 crores, provision was made for deducting / adjusting any liability exceeding Rs. 599.62 crores. It was noticed by the First Appellate Authority that in the process of transaction, total liability exceeded Rs. 599.62 crores and the excess liability was quantified at Rs. 43.36 crores which amount was not paid by Fortis Hospitals Ltd to the assessee but was adjusted against Rs. 186.58 crores