TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of rent - also not covered by any other tax deduction provision, being only by way of modification in the terms of the original deed, so that it could be said to be in the nature of a charge or fee paid under the lease agreement for extension of time – revenue could not controvert it in any manner – thus, it cannot be said to be not in the nature of rent and not exigible to deduction of tax at source u/s 194I – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. Nos. 5654 & 5655/Mum/2012, Cross objection Nos. 238 & 239/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-5-2014 - Shri Sanjay Arora, AM And Shri Amit Shukla,JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Maurya Pratap For the Respondent : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Shri Arpit Agarwal ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, A. M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord. On being pointed out that, as observed by the tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Dhirendra Ramji Vora (in ITA No. 3179/Mum/2002 dated 09.04.2014), one of the decisions being relied upon by the assessee itself, the issue is primarily factual, to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the case, i.e., if the whole or any part of the payment, irrespective of its nomenclature in the lease agreement, is a price for the transfer of the lease-hold rights or is in the nature of rent, i.e., toward the use of land, it was pointed out by the ld. AR that the payments are to MMRDA, the same lessor as in the case of ITO vs. Wadhwa Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No.695/Mum(G)/2012 dated 03.07.2013/copy on record). The tribunal has, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e., toward acquiring lease-hold rights, a capital asset, not exigible to deduction of tax at source u/s.194-I. We decide accordingly. Coming to the following assessment year, the impugned payment of Rs.263.55 lacs stood made for an extension of time for the construction of the hotel beyond the period as originally specified in the lease deed. In our view, this does not lead to acquisition of any lease-hold rights, or any capital asset for that matter, by the assessee and, thus, would not qualify as additional lease premium, as held it to be by the first appellate authority. So, however, as argued by the ld. AR, on this view being expressed by us during hearing, the same, at the same time, cannot also be considered as in the nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
