9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 439 - AT - Income TaxNon deduction of tds - lease premium paid - CIT(A) deleted demand raised and interest under section 201(1) and 201(1A) respectively - Held that - As relying on case of ITO vs.Shah Group Builders Ltd., 2014 (1) TMI 1497 - ITAT MUMBAI impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) holding that the lease premium paid by the assessee to CIDCO not being in the nature of rent as contemplated in section 194-I of the Act, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from the said payment and hence could not be treated as the assessee in default u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. The appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of demand raised on account of TDS and interest under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Compliance with the provisions of section 194-I regarding tax deduction at source (TDS) on lease premium payments. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Demand Raised on Account of TDS and Interest: The appeals filed by the Revenue challenged the deletion of demand totaling Rs. 1,05,15,179/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and Rs. 8,65,582/- for the assessment year 2011-12, which were levied under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to deduct tax amounting to Rs. 82,26,800/- in AY 2010-11 and Rs. 6,98,050/- in AY 2011-12, along with interest of Rs. 22,88,379/- and Rs. 1,62,532/- respectively for the same assessment years. The tax was allegedly deductible on the lease premium paid for a plot of land in Navi Mumbai allotted to the assessee by CIDCO. The CIT(A) had deleted the demand, following judicial precedents, which led to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been previously decided in favor of the assessee in cases such as ITO vs. Shah Group Builders Ltd. and ITO vs. Dhirendra Ramji Vora. The Tribunal, therefore, decided the issue in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. 2. Compliance with Provisions of Section 194-I Regarding TDS on Lease Premium Payments: The core issue was whether the assessee was required to deduct tax at source from the lease premium paid to CIDCO under section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had treated the assessee as in default for not deducting TDS on these payments, considering them as rent under section 194-I. The AO argued that the lump-sum lease premium paid was essentially advance rent, citing judicial pronouncements from the Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts to support this view. The CIT(A), however, found that the lease premium was not in the nature of rent as contemplated under section 194-I. This conclusion was based on similar cases, including Navi Mumbai SEZ Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that lease premium payments were not subject to TDS as rent. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing its own decisions in cases like Shree Naman Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Wadhwa & Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd., which distinguished lease premium as a capital expenditure rather than periodic rent. The Tribunal noted that the lease premium was a one-time payment made to acquire leasehold rights and not a recurring rent payment. It emphasized that the definition of "rent" under section 194-I includes payments for the use of land, but the lease premium, being a lump-sum payment, did not fit this definition. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the lease premium paid by the assessee to CIDCO was not in the nature of rent and thus did not attract TDS under section 194-I. Consequently, the assessee was not in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) for failing to deduct TDS on these payments. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on June 12, 2014, dismissing both appeals filed by the Revenue.
|
