9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1342 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194I - payment to CIDCO as lease premium - Held that - Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Indian News Paper Society (2015 (12) TMI 984 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein it has been held that lease premium paid to MMRDA is capital expenditure. Once that is so, then there is no requirement to deduct TDS. Thus, following the view taken by this Tribunal that such payment of lease premium does not fall within the meaning of rent as contemplated u/s 194-I, we hold that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS on such payment. The main reason being that the lease premium was paid to acquire plot of land with substantial rights so as to become the owner of the plot. Once, the payment is for acquisition of land rights and then, the same is to be reckoned as capital expenditure. Thus, we uphold the order of the learned CIT (A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
1. Whether the payment made by the Lessee to the Lessor qualifies as rent for TDS deduction under section 194-I. 2. Whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS under section 194-I for the payment made to CIDCO for acquiring a plot of land on lease. 3. Whether the assessee can be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) for not deducting TDS and levying interest under section 201(1A). 4. Whether the payment made can be considered as rent under section 194-I. 5. Whether the decision of the Apex Court in a related case affects the taxability of the payment made by the assessee. Analysis: 1. The appeal by the Revenue challenged the CIT (A)'s order regarding the nature of the payment made by the Lessee to the Lessor. The Revenue contended that the amount paid should be considered as rent for TDS deduction under section 194-I. The Counsel for the assessee argued that previous Tribunal decisions supported the view that such lump sum payments of lease premium do not fall under the definition of "rent." Additionally, a judgment by the Delhi High Court in a similar case supported the capital expenditure treatment of such payments. 2. The Assessing Officer treated the payment made by the assessee to CIDCO as rent, requiring TDS deduction under section 194-I. However, the CIT (A) disagreed, considering the payment as capital in nature for acquiring leasehold land. The CIT (A) referred to various Tribunal decisions and the judgment of the Delhi High Court to support this view. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, stating that the payment for acquiring land rights does not qualify as rent under section 194-I, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal. 3. The issue of the assessee being an assessee in default under section 201(1) for not deducting TDS was addressed by the Tribunal, emphasizing that the payment was for acquiring land rights and not for lease rent. Therefore, the Tribunal held that no TDS was required to be deducted under section 194-I, aligning with previous Tribunal decisions and the Delhi High Court judgment. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, submissions, and previous decisions to conclude that the payment made by the assessee was capital in nature for acquiring land rights, not falling under the definition of rent for TDS deduction. The Tribunal highlighted that various Tribunal decisions and the Delhi High Court judgment supported the capital expenditure treatment of such payments, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal. 5. The Tribunal considered the decision of the Apex Court in a related case but maintained that the payment made by the assessee for acquiring land rights did not qualify as rent for TDS deduction under section 194-I. The Tribunal's decision was based on the nature of the payment and previous legal interpretations, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
|
