TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J.] - Both these appeals, arise out of consolidated order of ITAT dated 29.08.2003, by which appeals of assessee-respondent were accepted, and demand raised for the Financial Years 2001-02 2002-03 by assessing officer in respect of interest paid on TDR/STDR and rent paid, were set aside. Since the questions involved in these appeals are same and they pertain to the very same assessee but for different financial years, these appeals are being decided by this common order. Survey was conducted at the business premises of assessee respondent on 05.03.2002, and it was noticed that TDS was not deducted on interest paid on TDR/STDR, and TDS was not deducted on rent paid for the office building to four co-owners for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epting appeals on this ground. He further submitted that rent was payable for office building to the co-sharers, whose shares were not definite and ascertainable, hence TDS was to be deducted on payment of rent, and learned ITAT has committed error in accepting appeals. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent assessee has supported order of learned ITAT, and submitted that as per provisions of Sec.10(15)(fa), the interest income was exempt from taxable income and share of co-owners in rented premises was definite, thus, learned ITAT has not committed any error in accepting the appeals, hence the present appeals are liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Sec.10(15)(fa) is not applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to which, her three sons and one grand son became absolute owners of the property in definite shares. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on 219 ITR 327 (Calcutta)-Smt. Bishaka Sarkar Vs. Union of India Anr., in which it was held that rent paid to co-owners cannot be split up and co-owners would come within the expression "other cases", so deduction of tax at the rate of 20% was justified. It appears that learned Judge of Calcutta High Court did not take note of law laid down by Apex Court in 215 ITR 22 -CIT Vs. Bijoy Kumar Almal, in which it was held that where property is owned by two or more persons and their respective shares are definite and ascertainable, they shall not, in respect of such property, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
