AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)/201(1A) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of real estate development and executing residential project at Greater Noida named 'Paramount Golf Forestte'. During the course of the assessment proceedings, assessee in response to the query, furnished the details with regard to the TDS on the payment made to UPSIDC, from where the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has not deducted TDS for the payment of annual lease rent of Rs. 2,92,02,984/- paid to UPSIDC u/s.194-I. 3. In response to the show cause notice, assessee filed its detailed submission wherein it was contended that the lease rent was paid as onetime payment for lease of land for long ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e person to whom the payment has been made, has furnished his return of income u/s.139; has taken into account such sum for computing the income in such return of income; and has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, if the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed, then no liability can be fixed u/s.201. Since this is a beneficial provision to remove the rigors, therefore, it has to be given retrospective effect. 5. Ld. CIT (A) held that assessee is a developer of a property and he is in the business of purchasing the property and developing it and finally selling them to the customers. The assessee has treated the land as work-in-progress and al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.160 & 161 of 2015; and Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Calcutta Export Company, vide judgment and order dated 24th April, 2018, wherein it has been held that the proviso added u/s.201(1) and 40(a)(ia) has to be given retrospective effect. He further drew our attention to the CBDT Circular No.35 of 2016 dated 13th October, 2016, wherein it has been held that one-time non refundable upfront charges paid by the assessee for acquisition of leasehold rights over an immovable property cannot be constituted as rental income and assessee is not obliged to deduct tax at source u/s.194I. Thus, on this ground alone assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee-i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o effect from 01.07.2012, then assessee cannot be held as 'assessee-in-default'. The said proviso reads as under: "Provided- that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident- (i) has furnished his return of income under section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for acquiring a plot of land on an 80 years lease was in the nature of capital expense not falling within the ambit of Section 194-1 of the Act. In this case, the court reasoned that since all the rights easements and appurtenances in respect of the said land were in effect transferred to the lessee for 80 years and since there was no provision in lease agreement for adjustment of premium amount paid against annual rent payable, the payment of lease premium was a capital expense not requiring deduction of tax at source under section 194-1 of the Act. 4. Further, in the case Foxconn India Developer Limited (Tax Case Appeal No. 801/2013), the Hon'ble Chennai High Court held that the one-time non-refundable upfront charges paid by the....