2008 (8) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... rent paid, were set aside. 2. Since the questions involved in these appeals are the same and they pertain to the very same assessee but for different financial years, these appeals are being decided by this common order. 3. Survey was conducted at the business premises of assessee-respondent on March 5, 2002, and it was noticed that TDS was not deducted on interest paid on TDR/STDR, and TDS was not deducted on rent paid for the office building to four co-owners for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02, and thus levied tax and interest. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), vide order dated April 4, 2003, partly accepted the appeals but confirmed the order of the assessing authority pertaining to the liability to deduc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing to the co sharers, whose shares were not definite and ascertainable, hence TDS was to be deducted on payment of rent, and the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has committed error in accepting appeals. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has supported the order of the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, and submitted that as per the provisions of section 10(15) (iv) (fa), the interest income was exempt from taxable income and share of co-owners in rented premises was definite, thus, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error in accepting the appeals, hence the present appeals are liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that section 10(15....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Income-tax (Appeals) and learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, make it clear that the property was of the late Smt. Tej Roop Kumari, who created registered trust in her lifetime on October 10, 1990, according to which, her three sons and one grandson became absolute owners of the property in definite shares. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Smt. Bishaka Sarkar v. Union of India [1996] 219 ITR 327 (Cal), in which it was held that rent paid to co-owners cannot be split up and co-owners would come within the expression "other cases", so deduction of tax at the rate of 20 per cent. was justified. It appears that the learned judge of the Calcutta High Court did not take note of the law laid down by the apex court in CI....