2014 (1) TMI 1891 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194I - lease premium paid to MMRDA towards additional premium for additional built up area - HELD THAT - Issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case 2013 (9) TMI 158 - ITAT DELHI payment of lease premium was not to be made on periodical basis but it was one time payment to acquire the land with right to construct a commercial complex thereon and the lease premium was paid to MMRDA in four installments - it is a lease premium for acquiring land with right to construct a commercial building although with certain restrictions, but it is a capital expenditure not falling within the ambit of section 194-I of the Act - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the payment made by the assessee to MMRDA is covered under the definition of "Rent" as per provisions of section 194I of the I.T. Act.
2. Whether the assessee can be treated as in default within the meaning of section 201(1) of the I.T. Act for non-deduction of TDS on the payment made.
3. Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the liability to deduct tax at source.

Analysis:
1. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that TDS was required to be deducted by the assessee under section 194I of the I.T. Act on the lease premium paid to MMRDA. The AO also stated that the assessee failed to deduct TDS without providing a reasonable cause. Consequently, the deductor company was treated as an assessee in default under section 201(2) of the I.T. Act.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) considered the issue and referred to his previous appellate orders in other assessment years. He concluded that the payment made could not be determined as rent under section 194I. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source and could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201 of the I.T. Act.

3. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, noted that the issue was already decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. The Tribunal referred to its earlier order where it was stated that the payment made was a capital expenditure for acquiring land, not falling within the ambit of section 194-I of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from the payment made to MMRDA as lease premium. As the issue was already decided in the assessee's favor in the preceding year, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and decided the issue in favor of the assessee.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, following the precedent set in the earlier decision. The order was pronounced in the Open Court, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was ultimately dismissed.