Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 241 - AT - Income TaxSeeking relief that assessee may not be treated as assessee in default u/s 201(1) - TDS u/s 194I - payment of lease rent - annual maintenance charges paid by the assessee to Yamuna development express authority - tds liability - demand under section 201 (1) and section 201(1A) - Held that:- This issue is now squarely covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rajesh Projects (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)-II [2017 (2) TMI 1109 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where in it has been held that “amounts constituting annual lease rent, expressed in terms of percentage (e.g. 1%) of the total premium for the duration of the lease, are rent, and therefore subject to TDS. Since the petitioners could not make the deductions due to the insistence of GNOIDA, a direction is issued to the said authority (GNOIDA) to comply with the provisions of law and make all payments, which would have been otherwise part of the deductions, for the periods, in question, till end of the date of this judgment.” Now if the assessee wishes to take benefit of the proviso to section 201 of the income tax act, then it is for the assessee to furnish necessary detail, so that assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default with respect to the amount of tax deductible. As the proviso added to section 201 is for mitigating any hardship therefore we set aside the issue to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to furnish necessary detail is provided therein and to deposit necessary interest under section 201(1A) of the act in accordance with the law.- Decided in favor of revenue and partly in favor of assessee. TDS u/s 194A - payment of interest on deferred payment of EDC lease premium - payment of interest to YEIDA - Held that:- As decided in CIT (TDS) Vs. Canara Bank [2016 (5) TMI 570 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] while deciding the issue on payment of interest to Noida has held that authorities constituted by the State Act are entitled to exemption of payment of tax at source u/s 194A of the Act.Therefore ,TDS u/s 194A is not required to be deducted on interest payment to Yamuna Development Authority - Decided in favor of assessee. TDS u/s 194H - deduction of tax at source on bank guarantee commission - withholding tax - assessee acting not as an agent but on principle-to-principle basis - Held that:- The bank guarantee commission is not subject to withholding tax u/s 194H of the Act as it does not fall into Clause (i) of the Explanation of Section 194H. As decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Living Media India Ltd dated 06.05.2008 - Decided in favor of assessee
|