ITO (TDS)2(3), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI PUNE MOTOR MALAK SHRAMJIVAN PREMISES CO OP SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 799/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 August 2016AY 1994-953 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lease premium paid by the assessee to MMRDA is not liable for deduction of tax at source under Section 194-I of the Act. Consequently, the demands raised by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) are liable to be cancelled.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the assessee's liability to deduct tax at source on lease premium paid to MMRDA. The Assessing Officer held that the lease premium was rent and thus liable for TDS under Section 194-I.

What were the issues?

Whether lease premium paid to MMRDA is liable for deduction of tax at source under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 36 Taxmann 526
    36 Taxmann 526 · 2013 · ITAT
    11 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh (JM) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavi Songhavi
For Respondent: Shri S. Ravichandran
Hearing: 29.8.2016Pronounced: 29.8.2016

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 799/Mum/2014
I.T.A. No. 800/Mum/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-13, Mumbai and they relate to A.Y. 1994-95 and 2007-08.

2.

In both the appeals identical issues are urged by the Revenue and hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.

3.

Short issue urged in these appeals is whether the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source in respect of lease premium paid to MMRDA.

4.

The Assessing Officer held that the lease premium paid is liable for deduction u/s. 194-I of the Act as the same is in the nature of rent.

2 M/s Mumbai Pune Motor Malak Shramjivan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd.

Accordingly, he raised demand u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act in both the years. Learned CIT(A), by following decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO (TDS) Vs. Navi Mumbai SEZ P. Ltd. (2013) 38 taxamnn.com 2,1 held that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source on the lease premium amount paid by it u/s. 194-I of the Act. Aggrieved, the Revenue has filed these appeals before us.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in to 1006/Mum/2014 relating to A.Ys. 1995-96 to 1997-98 and 2006-07 to 2007-08 and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 27.4.2016, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative did not contradict the submissions made by learned AR.

6.

Having heard the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue urged by the Revenue has been decided by the coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case (referred supra) in favour of the assessee. We noticed that the Coordinate Bench has followed the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Wadhwa Associates Realtors (P) Ltd. (2013) 36 Taxman 526 and also decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of ITO (TDS) Vs. Palton Yarn Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1298/Mum/2014 dated 25.11.2015) to decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly we hold that the Lease premium paid by the assessee to MMRDA is not liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194I of the Act. Accordingly the demand raised by the AO u/s 201(1)/201(1A) are liable to cancelled.

7.

Since the decision rendered by learned CIT(A) is in tune of decision rendered by the coordinate Bench, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly we uphold his order passed on this issue in both the years.

3 M/s Mumbai Pune Motor Malak Shramjivan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd.

8.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 29.8.2016

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 →