https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328819 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that the lease premium paid to PCNTDA was not subject to TDS under section 194I. The demand raised under section 201(1) and 201(1A) was deemed unjustified as the lease premium was considered a pre-condition for lease rights, supported by payment of stamp duty on the plot's market value. Precedents highlighted that such payments were not liable for TDS, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. en-us Mon, 30 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328819 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that the lease premium paid to PCNTDA was not subject to TDS under section 194I. The demand raised under section 201(1) and 201(1A) was deemed unjustified as the lease premium was considered a pre-condition for lease rights, supported by payment of stamp duty on the plot's market value. Precedents highlighted that such payments were not liable for TDS, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328819