9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to construct a commercial building although with certain restrictions, but it is a capital expenditure not falling within the ambit of section 194-I of the Act - Decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee in default under section 201 of the I.T. Act. 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Ld. Counsel of the assessee at the out set submitted that the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 5207/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) and in ITA No. 5208/Del/2012 for asstt. year 2009-10 vide order dated 20.6.2013. In the said order the Tribunal had referred to the CIT(A)'s order and affirmed the same by holding as under:- Para 12. In view of above observations, we clearly observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has also dealt with other cases pertaining to the land leased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to construct a commercial building complex. Para 17. To sum up, we finally hold that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from the payment made to MMRDA as lease premium, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly decided this issue in favour of the assessee and we have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in this regard. Accordingly, ground no. 3 of ITA 5207/D/12 and ground no.2 of ITA 5208/D/12 being devoid of merits are dismissed." 7. Ld. DR could not controvert the above submissions. Thus on identical facts in preceding year Tribunal has decided the issue in assessee's favour. Respectfully following the precedent as above, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
