THE SWASTI PRODUCE CO. P LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) 14, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6793/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 November 2016AY 2004-0519 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the payment for sub-lease rights was akin to acquiring ownership rights and not rent, thus not covered by Section 194-I. The payment for infrastructure facilities was held to be covered under Section 194-C, and this issue was remanded to the AO for verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee made payments for sub-lease rights of land and for sharing infrastructure facilities. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that these payments were 'rent' and liable for TDS under Section 194-I, deeming the assessee in default for short deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether payments for sub-lease rights and infrastructure facilities are liable for TDS under Section 194-I or other sections, and the consequential interest liability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194-I,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 194-C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Appellant: Shri N.B. Gandhi
For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop,DR

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned, Mumbai 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT- Concerned, Mumbai �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai “E” Bench 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

More judgments on Section 194-I

All 307 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194-I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →