2016 (12) TMI 1342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CIT(A) has erred in holding that the amount paid by the Lessee (M/s. BKS Galaxy Realtors Pvt. Ltd.) to the Lessor (CIDCO) was not in the nature of rent, as defined in the Explanation (i) to Section 194 I of the Act for the purpose of deduction of tax at source." (ii) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the claim of the assessee that no tax wax deductible under section 194 I from the payment made by the assessee to CIDCO for acquisition of the plot of land on lease from CIDCO." (iii) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not confirming the order of the Assessing Officer treating the assessee as an assessee in default u/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d compilation of various Tribunal decisions before us. He also pointed out that, there is a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Indian News Paper Society order dated 18-12-2015 in ITA No.918 & 920 of 2015, wherein payment of lease premium paid to MMRDA was held to be capital expenditure. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 16,05,06,501/- to CIDCO as lease premium. The Assessing Officer held that the same is to be treated as rent and, therefore, the assessee should have deducted TDS u/s 194-I. Before the learned CIT (A), it was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Department. The Department has preferred further appeal with Hon'ble Bombay High Court which is pending. 3.4 I have perused the facts of the case, submission of the appellant and the order u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) and the remand report submitted by the AO. Thus, from RR it is apparent that the AO has not brought any distinguishing facts but has simply stated that the decision of ITAT is not accepted by the Department. On perusal of submissions filed by the appellant, it is observed that the payment is for acquisition of leasehold land. The payment made is not made for lease rent and therefore, no TDS was deducted by the appellant as it was considered as a payment for acquisition of Land Rights. The amount charged is equal to the rate prevale....