TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture not falling within the ambit of section 194-I of the Act - Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 4660/DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2014 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Sh. Sanjeev M Shah, Advocate For the Department : S h. Sameer Sharma, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-XXX), New Delhi dated 02.5.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that payment of ₹ 16,93,03,285/- m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... default under section 201 of the I.T. Act. 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Ld. Counsel of the assessee at the out set submitted that the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No. 5207/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) and in ITA No. 5208/Del/2012 for asstt. year 2009-10 vide order dated 20.6.2013. In the said order the Tribunal had referred to the CIT(A) s order and affirmed the same by holding as under:- Para 12. In view of above observations, we clearly observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has also dealt with other cases pertaining to the land leased by MMRD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struct a commercial building complex. Para 17. To sum up, we finally hold that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from the payment made to MMRDA as lease premium, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly decided this issue in favour of the assessee and we have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in this regard. Accordingly, ground no. 3 of ITA 5207/D/12 and ground no.2 of ITA 5208/D/12 being devoid of merits are dismissed. 7. Ld. DR could not controvert the above submissions. Thus on identical facts in preceding year Tribunal has decided the issue in assessee s favour. Respectfully following the precedent as above, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
