9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2883/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - Rajendra, AM And Amit Shukla, JM For the Appellant : Shri Sujit Bangar For the Respondent : Shri Jitendra Jain ORDER Per Amit Shukla, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against impugned order dated 11.02.2014, passed by CIT(A)-14, Mumbai in relation to the order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) for the assessment year 2011-12, vide which following grounds have been raised :- (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the amount paid by the Lessee (Lodha Crown Buildm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for deduction of tax at source are not concerned with the ultimate result of assessment . 2. At the outset, both the parties agreed that the issue involved in the aforesaid appeal is covered by series of Tribunal decisions in various cases, wherein it has been consistently held that payment of lease premium paid to MMRDA towards acquiring rights and use of land is not covered under definition of rent, within the section 194I and, therefore, assessee is not required to deduct TDS on such payment and, therefore, assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default u/s 201 and consequently no liability for interest 201(1A). 3. Brief facts are that, during the course of survey proceedings, in the case of MMRDA, it was found that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de upon granting of rights and allotment of plot as it was considered a payment for acquisition of land rights and not merely a payment of rent for the use of the land. The amount charged was as per the stamp duty ready recokner, therefore, such a premium paid is capital in nature and not a rent as contemplated u/s 194I. After following the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s. Wadhwa Associates Realtors [2013] 36 Taxman 526, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS, therefore, assessee cannot held to be assessee in default u/s 201(1) and consequently no interest u/s 201(1A) could be charged. 6. As admitted by both the parties this issue had come up for consideration in series of decisions, some of which are as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
