TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nurag Ojha, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. V.K. Saksena and Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Junior Standing Counsels. For the Respondent : Mr. Siddarth Malhotra, Advocate. ORDER 1. By way of the present appeal, which is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), the Department has challenged the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Income Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding Counsel for the Department submitted that the judgment in the case of Rajesh Projects (supra) was passed in peculiar facts and since the present assessee was not before this Court and thus, what has been held by this Court in its judgment dated 16.02.2017, passed in the case of Rajesh Projects (supra) cannot decide respondent's fate. 4. He further invited Court's attention towards paragrap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired to be deducted. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. A perusal of the judgment passed in the case of Rajesh Projects (supra), makes it abundantly clear that this Court had clearly held that GNOIDA does not fall within the ambit of expression 'Government' and thus, one percent tax is required to be deducted from the annual lease rent being paid to it. But while holding so, this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it could not lead evidence that it was also insisted by GNOIDA that no tax be deducted. 10. We are not much convinced with the arguments of Mr. Ojha, learned Senior Standing Counsel, respondent/assessee has failed to prove that it was also persuaded by the GNOIDA not to deduct tax from the payment being made to it. 11. It cannot be believed that the authority would ask Rajesh Projects (sup....