TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the Revenue, challenging the impugned order dated 25th December 2011, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, in relation to order under section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) for the assessment year 2009 10. 2. The only issue involved in the present appeal preferred by the Revenue, is in respect of non deduction of TDS and levy of intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94 I and, hence, no TDS is required to be deducted. 4. Brief facts, as culled out from the impugned order, are that the assessee has made payment to MMRDA for sums amounting to ` 18.42 crores in the financial year 2008 09 towards premium on account of additional FSI in respect of two plots of land in the Bandra Kurla Complex. These plots were allotted to the assessee through lease deed executed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been considered by me. It is seen that the facts in the case of the appellant are similar to the facts in the case of Shree Naman Developers Ltd. and other cases cited in para 4.6 above. Hence, it is evident that the premium paid by the appellant for acquiring additional FSI in respect of the leased plots is not in the nature of rent as contemplated u/s 194 I of the Act. It is thus also evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find that this issue is covered by a series of decisions of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. Moreover, we have also decided identical issue against the Revenue following the aforesaid decisions, as relied upon by the learned Counsel in an appeal filed by the Revenue in Trent Limited, ITA no.1730/Mum./2012, vide order of even date. Consistent with the view take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
