TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee for a period of 80 years with "all the rights, easements and appurtenances" was in the nature of a capital expenditure. This coupled with the fact that the MMRDA did not treat the receipt as income clinches the issue in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. - ITA Nos. 918 & 920/2015 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2015 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel For the Respondents : Mr Sunil Fernandes with Mr Deepak Pathak And Ms Misthi Jain, Advs ORDER ITA 918/2015 and CM No. 29413/2015 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) ITA 920/2015 and CM No. 29546/2015 (for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal) 1. These are two appeals by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on an 80 year lease at Bandra- Kurla Complex, Mumbai was in the nature of a capital expense not falling within the ambit of Section 194I of the Act. While the Assessing Officer ('AO') treated it as revenue expenditure, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)'] reversed it and held it to be in the nature of a capital expense not requiring deduction of tax at source under Section 194I of the Act. The ITAT has in the impugned order concurred with the CIT (A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. 4. Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that the actual annual rent was a nominal sum and, therefore, what in fact was paid by the Assessee to MMRDA was in the nature of advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement with MMRDA dated 9th April 2008 clearly state that the payment of ₹ 88,52,75,000 is only on the ground of lease premium and not rent. There is no provision in the lease agreement for adjustment of the premium amount against the annual rent of ₹ 10,415 payable by the Assessee to MMRDA. 7. The second factor is that under the lease agreement, the plot of land together with all the rights, easements and appurtenances and the like for 80 years commencing from 01. 04.2008 was demised to the Assessee. A third factor which has been noticed in the impugned order of the ITAT is that in the writ petition filed by the Assessee in the Bombay High Court, being WP (C) N0. 1504 of 2001, an affidavit has been filed by the Revenue in w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
