9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 - ITA No. 2341/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2016 - Sri B. R. Baskaran, AM And Sri Amit Shukla, JM Appellant by : Shri Vaibhav Jain, DR Respondent by : Shri Prakash Pandit, AR ORDER Per Amit Shukla, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 25-02-2015 passed by the learned CIT (A)-59, Mumbai in relation to the order passed u/s 201 (1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the question of taxability of the payment made by the assessee to CIDCO despite the decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Aggarwal Chambers of Commerce V. Ganpat Rai Hiralal, 33 ITR 245, where it has been held that the persons who are responsible for deduction of tax at source are not concerned with the ultimate result of assessment. 2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue of payment of lease premium to CIDCO, whether falls within the ambit of rent u/s 194-I or not has been the subject matter of dispute in various appeals before this Tribunal. Consistently, this Tribunal has been holding that such a lump sum payment of lease premium does not fall within the ambit of rent , therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent for the purpose of deduction of TDS u/s 194-I. The relevant observation of the CIT (A) reads as under:- 3.3 At the time of appellate proceedings, the submission filed by the appellant was remanded to the AO by the CIT(A)-12, Mumbai vide letter no.CIT(A)-12/Misc. Comments of AO/2014-15 dated 15/05/2014 to the AO for report. The AO was also asked to place new arguments/points/evidences which are not referred to in the order appealed against, so as to strengthen the case of the Revenue. The Remand Report was received from the AO through the Addl. CIT (TDS), Range-1, Mumbai vide his letter No.Addl. CIT (TDS)/Range-1(1)/Comments of AO/2014-15 dated 12/08/2015. The AO s reported stated interalia as under:- The report/comments calle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ITA No.5207/Del/2012) dated 20 June 2013 (Del); 2. M/s. Wadhwa Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.695/M/2012) dated 3 July 2013 (Mum); 3. Shree Naman Developers Ltd. (ITA No.686 687/M/2012) dated 14 August 2013 (Mum); 4. M/s. Shah Group Builders Ltd. (ITA No.4523/M/2012) dated 14 August 2013 (Mum); 5. M/s. TCG Urban Infrastructure Holding Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.4563/M/2012) dated 14 August 2013 (Mum); 6. M/s. Navi Mumbai SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.738/M/2012) dated 16 August 2013 (Mum); 7. M/s. Trent Limited (ITA No.4629/M/2012) dated 21 August 2013 (Mum); 8. Naman BKC CHS Ltd. (ITA No.708/M/2012) dated 12 September 2013 (Mum); 9. Parinee Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1734/M/2012) dated 26 Septem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
