2011 (3) TMI 1710

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpany that the income in the nature retention money of Rs. 1,12,68,153/-does not accrue till period of performance guarantee is over; 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant company for deduction of proportionate leasehold premium of Rs. 1,69,772/- paid to MIDC"   3. Grounds of appeal no.1 is regarding the claim for retention money. 3.1 We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR and considered the relevant record. At the outset, we note that this issue has been considered and decided by this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.1139 to 1140/Mum/ 2003 and ITA No.6291/Mum/2003 for the assessment year 1994-95 and 2001-02 respectively vide order dated 24.11.2008. Since the issue has b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... below : "6. The facts are not in dispute. The lease agreement entered into between the assessee and GIDC has been analyzed and relevant terms summarized by the Tribunal. It is not necessary to refer to the said terms in detail in the present proceedings. Suffice it to state that the Tribunal on appreciation of the deed in question has recorded following findings of facts:  "It is not disputed that the land which has been leased out to the assessee did not cease to be belong to the GIDC, the lessor. The lease deed was registered because as per the Registration Act, it is compulsorily registrable, but it has not changed the ownership. It is not also disputed that the lease rent is very nominal and by obtaining this lan....