TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.03.2019 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-23, Delhi has erred 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that the definition of rent provided u/s 194I is wide enough to cover lease rent payments. Lease Rent payments are in the nature of rent u/s 194I and therefore are required to be subjected to TDS accordingly. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that the cost of land is paid to NOIDA which transfers and give....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of section 194I of the Act was not applicable upon the assessee as NOIDA Authority is a statutory authority established under U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and TDS is not required to be deducted in respect of any payment made to Government entity exempt u/s 10 of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the above explanation of the assessee and after dealing with the provisions of section 194I of the Act held that the definition of rent as given in section 194I is wide enough to cover the payment of lease rent to NOIDA Authority. The Assessing Officer also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition no.1338 of 2005 dated 28.02.211, wherein, it was held that NOIDA Authority is not a lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y or contractual liability towards NOIDA. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the tax liability u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs. 68,19,117/-. 5. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the grounds of appeal filed by the Department. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Mahagun (India) (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT after noting the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajesh Projects (India) (P.) Ltd. vs CIT(TDS) [2017] 78 taxmann.com 263/392 ITR 483 (Del.) dated 16.02.2017, where, it was stated that it was not correct to say that NOIDA Authority was not subject to T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lease rental is not susceptible to provisions of Section 194-I in view of specific communications made by the NOIDA Authorities on the applicability of Section 194-I of the Act; (ii) the proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) has already been completed and this is only a second round of proceedings under the same provisions; (iii) the applicability of the observations and conclusions in Rajesh Projects (surpa) is prospective. The Hon'ble High Court has visualized the difficulties of the tax payers and made the operation of judgment prospective in its wisdom and therefore, the cause of action if any, arising from Rajesh Projects (supra) is not available to the Revenue in A.Y. 2012-13 in question. 9. On appraisal of the factual....