9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber) For the Assessee : J. D. Mistri, A.R. For the Revenue : Rudolph N. D Souza, D.R. ORDER Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) The above titled appeal preferred by the Revenue relevant to assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] dated 26.07.2012. 2. The Revenue has taken as many as 14 grounds with various sub-grounds. However, from the grounds, we find that the effective issue involved in the appeal is relating to non-deduction of TDS under section 201(1)/201(1A), on the ground that the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 194-I. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 1,37,74,679/- on account of non-deduction of tax and interest on payment of lease premium and other fees made to MMRDA. 5. Aggrieved against the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after hearing the Ld. Representatives of the parties and in view of the detailed discussion made in his order, deleted the additions finally holding as under: 4.11 In the present case, the written submissions furnished by the appellant and the orders passed by the AO have been considered by me. It is seen that the facts in the case of the appellant are similar to the facts in the case of Shree Naman Developers Ltd and other cases cited in Para 4.6 above. Hence, it is evident that premium of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2013, ITA No. 695/Mum/2012 7. After carefully considering the rival submissions and the relevant findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find that this issue is covered by a series of decisions of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. Moreover, we have also decided identical issue against the Revenue following the aforesaid decisions, as relied upon by the learned Counsel in an appeal filed by the Revenue in Trent Limited, ITA no.1730/Mum./2012, vide order of even date. Consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal, we hold that such payment of premium on account of additional FSI cannot be treated as rent as stipulated under section 194-I and, hence, no TDS was required to be deducted. Consequently, interest under section 201(1)/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
