2015 (12) TMI 984

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nst the common order dated 20th June 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 5207 & 5208/Del/2012 for Assessment Years ('AYs') 2008-09 and 2010-11 respectively. 2. At the very outset, the Court would like to observe that there is an extraordinary delay of 740 days in re-filing of these appeals. The explanation offered is the standard one regarding the practice directions issued by this Court for e-filing of the appeals. As has already been observed by this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to get acquainted with the requirement of e-filing. Additionally, the Court has also provided scanning....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the period of 80 years for the land in question. He submitted that under Section 194I of the Act, any payment of rent for land would attract TDS. He placed reliance on a large number of decisions including Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468 (SC) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gemini Arts P. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 201. He also referred to the recent decision of this Court in Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 350 ITR 24 (Del). 5. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee referred to the specific factual findings of the CIT (A) at its discussion of the clauses of the lease agreem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eligible to tax." The above three undisputed factual aspects, in the considered view of the Court, conclusively settle the issue whether the premium paid to the MMRDA by the Assessee in terms of the lease agreement is, in fact, only a capital and not a revenue expenditure. 8. The impugned order of the ITAT refers to several decisions of the Supreme Court including A.R. Krishnamurthy v. Commissioner of Income Tax 172 ITR 311 (SC) and R. K. Palshikar 172 ITR 311 (SC) which have construed the payment made for transfer of leasehold rights for long period of time as a benefit of an enduring nature. The recent decision of this Court in Krishak Bharati (supra) also decides this particular issue likewise although on the facts of that case, the a....