TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same assessment year, both were clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 3753/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of real estate and constructions, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year declaring the total income of Rs. 1,20,62,49,330/-. The return was processed and the AO passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'The Act') determining the total income of Rs. 1,77,04,05,282/- after inter alia making disallowance of Rs. 51,32,63,248/- towards lease rent payment made to MMRDA. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by the decision of the ITAT Mumbai. 4. On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative did not dispute that the facts and circumstances of the present case is similar to the facts of the cases referred, however, relying upon the findings of the AO submitted that since each and every case is required to be decided on its own merit, the AO has rightly made the disallowance in question and the Ld. CIT has wrongly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents carefully in the light of the respective contentions of the parties. We have noticed that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has decided the identical issues in favour of the assessee in assessee's own cases referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned decision of ITAT. For the sake of completeness the relevant portion of order passed in the case of ITO vs. M/s.Wadhawa & Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd.(supra) is as under: "9. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the order of the lower authorities and the material evidence brought on record in the form of paper Book and the judicial decisions relied upon by the rival parties. The entire grievance revolves around the premium paid by the assessee to M/s. MMRDA Ltd. for the leasehold rights acquired by the assessee through the lease deed dt. November, 2004. It is the say of the Revenue that this lease premium was liable for deduction of tax at source failing which the assessee is to be treated as assessee in default. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and and additional built up area. The decisions of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. National Stock Exchange (supra) and Mukund Ltd (supra) have been well discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) is his order. The decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Khimline Pumps Ltd. (supra) squarely and directly apply on the facts of the case wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that payment for acquiring leasehold land is a capital expenditure. Considering the entire facts in totality in the light of the judicial decisions vis-à-vis provisions of Sec. 194-1, definition of rent as provided under the said provision, we do not find any reason to tamper or interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which we confirm....