9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1230 - AT - Income TaxTds u/s 194I - non deduction of tds on payments made to MMRDA - nature of payment - assessee in default - Held that - The issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Starlight Systems Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (9) TMI 1172 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein, the Tribunal has held that the lease premium paid to MMRDA, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not fall within the ambit of rent under section 194-I and, hence, no TDS is required to be deducted. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues involved:
1. Non-deduction of TDS under section 201(1)/201(1A) in relation to section 194-I. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involved an appeal by the Revenue concerning the assessment year 2010-11 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) related to the non-deduction of TDS under section 201(1)/201(1A) in connection with section 194-I. The case revolved around an assessee engaged in real estate development and leasing, where payments were made to the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) without deducting TDS. The Assessing Officer determined the liability under section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non-deduction of tax, leading to an appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) analyzed the case, considering the submissions and orders passed by the AO, and referred to similar cases to conclude that the payments made by the assessee to MMRDA were not in the nature of rent as per section 194-I. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted. The Revenue then appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the issue was covered by previous Tribunal decisions where it was held that the payments did not fall under the ambit of rent, hence no TDS was required to be deducted. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing a series of Tribunal decisions and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the consistent view taken in previous cases, where it was established that payments for additional FSI could not be treated as rent under section 194-I, thereby no TDS deduction was necessary. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found no new facts or case law to warrant a departure from the established view. Therefore, the issue was decided in favor of the assessee based on the precedents set by the Tribunal.
|
