9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 566 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194I - non deduction of TDS on the amount paid to the lessor towards lease premium - whether the said amount paid was not in nature of rent covered u/s 194I? - CIT(A) delted the addition - Held that - We have observed that the assessee company has made payment to CIDCO towards lease premium for plot no 166 in Sector 27 of Belapuron on 5.5.2009 which is leased to the assessee company by CIDCO for 60 years , which in our considered opinion is for acquisition of capital asset being long term holding rights in the afore-stated plot. The Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT v. Paradise Infra-con Private Limited (2014 (7) TMI 386 - ITAT MUMBAI ) on identical facts has held that the lease premium to CIDCO is capital expenditure to acquire land with substantial right to construct and could not be considered as rent to be covered u/s 194I of the Act and hence no TDS is to be deducted on the same which we Respectfully follow in the instant appeal as the facts are identical. We hereby affirm the orders of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the AO on accounts of defaults u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-deduction of TDS under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the payment made to CIDCO is considered as lease rent or acquisition of capital asset. 3. Liability of the assessee company to be treated as 'assessee in default' under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-deduction of TDS under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue revolves around whether the assessee company was required to deduct TDS under Section 194I on the payment made to CIDCO. The AO contended that the payment made by the assessee company to CIDCO for lease premium falls under the definition of 'rent' as per Section 194I, which necessitates TDS deduction. The AO emphasized that Section 194I has a broad scope, covering rent and lease in relation to any property transactions, including lease, sub-lease, tenancy, or any other arrangement for the use of land, building, machinery, etc. 2. Whether the payment made to CIDCO is considered as lease rent or acquisition of capital asset: The assessee company argued that the payment of Rs. 1,38,12,158/- to CIDCO was for acquiring long-term holding rights in the plot, which is a capital asset, and not merely a lease rent. The CIT(A) supported this view, stating that the premium paid to CIDCO was for the allotment of the plot and acquisition of land rights, not for the use of land, thereby not falling under the ambit of 'rent' as per Section 194I. The CIT(A) referenced the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Shah Group Builders Limited, which held that lease premium paid to CIDCO is not in the nature of rent as contemplated under Section 194I. 3. Liability of the assessee company to be treated as 'assessee in default' under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The AO declared the assessee company as 'assessee in default' under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) for not deducting TDS on the lease premium paid to CIDCO. However, the CIT(A) overturned this decision, stating that the payment was for acquiring a capital asset and not rent, thus no TDS was required. This view was further supported by the Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT v. Paradise Infra-con Private Limited, which held that lease premium paid to CIDCO is capital expenditure for acquiring land with substantial rights to construct, and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194I. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, affirming that the payment of Rs. 1,38,12,158/- made by the assessee company to CIDCO for lease premium was for the acquisition of a capital asset and not rent. Therefore, no TDS was required to be deducted under Section 194I. Consequently, the assessee company could not be treated as 'assessee in default' under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the additions made by the AO. Final Judgment: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the payment made by the assessee company to CIDCO towards lease premium was for acquiring a capital asset and not rent, hence no TDS was required under Section 194I. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld, and the additions made by the AO were deleted.
|
