TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lidated along with the cross objections filed by the assessee for the sake of convenience. 2. Although the Revenue has raised as many as 12 grounds in all the two appeals, the solitary issue arising out of the same is whether the assessee is required to deduct tax at source from the payment of lease premium made to MMRDA during the years under consideration u/s 194-1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee was allotted certain plots of land in the Bandra Kurla Complex in the year 2006-07 on lease subject to payment of lease premium to MMRDA. The assessee was also allotted additional built up area in respect of the said plot of land allotted to it by MM....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is no need to refer to any decision or case law because as per decision of Supreme Court rules of interpretation / construction come into play only where there is ambiguity in law and such rules of interpretation / construction have no. place when the law is clear and unambiguous. (iii) MMRDA is neither government nor a corporation incorporated under a Central Act. Accordingly, it does not qualify for exclusion from the TDS of Chapter XVII-B as provided for under section 196 of the Act. (iv) On given facts, it is clear that the assessee was liable to deduct T.D.S. on any payment by whatever name called made by it to MMRDA under the lease for the use of land. Since, it has not been done, the T.D.S. default has occurred. (v) On fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving identical facts, the ld. CIT(A) held that the premium paid by the assessee in respect of leased plot of land to MMRDA during the years under consideration for allotment of additional built up area was not in the nature of rent as contemplated u/s 194-I of the Act and the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source from the payment of premium made to MMRDA. The demand raised against the assessee by treating it as assessee in default vide an order passed by the A.O. u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act for both the years under consideration, therefore, was cancelled by the ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the orders of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the side....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s provided u/s. 194-1 of the Act. 10. We have carefully perused the lease deed as exhibited from page- 1 to 42 of the Paper Book. A careful reading of the said lease deed transpires that the premium is not paid under a lease but is paid as a price for obtaining the lease, hence it precedes the grant of lease. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be equated with the rent which is paid periodically. A perusal of the records further show that the payment to MMRD is also for additional built up are and also for granting free of FSI area, such payment cannot be equated to rent. It is also seen that the MMRD in exercise of power u/s. 43 r.w. Sec. 37(1) of the Maharashtra Town Planning Act 1966, MRTP Act and other powers enabling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctfully follow the decisions rendered in the said cases by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and uphol the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) holding that the lease premium paid by the assessee to MMRDA not being in the nature of rent as contemplated in section 194-I of the Act, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from the said payment and hence could not be treated as the assessee in default u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. The appeals filed by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 7. In the Cross objections, the assessee has raised a solitary identical ground which reads as under:- "The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -14, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] erred in not appreciating the fact that Sta....