TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated in section 194-I of the Act, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from the said payment and hence could not be treated as the assessee in default u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act - payment on account of premium represents transfer price of the land on lease hold basis and no part qualifies to fall within the meaning of "rent" as contemplated in section 194–I and, therefore, no deduction of tax at source is required - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.5678/Mum./2012 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2014 - Sanjay Arora And Amit Shukla, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Mourya Pratap For the Respondents : Mr M P Lohia Mr Nikhil Tiwari ORDER :- PER : Amit Shukla The aforesaid appeal has been preferred by the Revenue c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the assessee was not required to deduct the tax at source. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given his detail reasoning and findings from Page 22 to 41 of the order. 4. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in series of decision on similar nature of lease premium paid to CIDCO / MMRA has held that they are not in the nature of rent. A list of such decisions given before us are as under: 1. The Indian News Papers Society (ITA No.5207/Del/2012) dated 20 June 2013 (Del); 2. M/s Wadhwa Associates Realtors Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 695/M/2012) dated 3 July 2013 (Mum); 3. Shree Naman Developers Ltd (ITA No. 686 687/M/2012) dated 14 August 2013 (Mum); 4. M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 629/Mum./2012, order dated 21st August 2013, wherein the Tribunal observed and held as under:- 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that a similar issue involved in the case of Shree Naman Hotels Pvt. Shree Naman Developers Ltd. has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee vide an order dated 14-08-2013 passed in ITA No. 688 to 691/Mum/2012 by following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of M/s Wadhwa Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 3-7-2013 passed in ITA No.695/Mum/2012. In the case of M/s Wadhwa Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such payment cannot be equated to rent. It is also seen that the MMRD in exercise of power u/s. 43 r.w. Sec. 37(1) of the Maharashtra Town Planning Act 1966, MRTP Act and other powers enabling the same has approved the proposal to modify regulation 4A(ii) and thereby increased the FSI of the entire G Block of BKC. The Development Control Regulations for BKC specify the permissible FSI. Pursuant to such provisions, the assessee became entitled for additional FSI and has further acquired/purchased the additional built up area for construction of additional area on the aforesaid plot. Thus the assessee has made payment to MMRD under Development Control for acquiring leasehold land and additional built up area. The decisions of the Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
