MILLENIUM CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 2(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the lease premium paid to CIDCO for acquiring leasehold rights is capital in nature, not revenue. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for not deducting TDS on this payment.
What were the facts?
The assessee paid a lease premium to CIDCO for acquiring leasehold rights. The revenue authorities treated this payment as rent and held the assessee liable for non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) upheld this view.
What were the issues?
Whether the lease premium paid to CIDCO for acquiring leasehold rights is considered rent for the purpose of TDS under Section 194-I, and if the assessee is liable for non-deduction of TDS.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 194-I,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 271-C,Section 196
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT Assam v. The Panbari50 citing57 ITR 422 · 1965 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA(AM) & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JM)
आदेश ूितिल�प आदेश ूितिल�प अमे�षत अमे�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश ूितिल�प ूितिल�प अमे�षत अमे�षत
1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ू�यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु� / CIT 5. �वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार स�या�पत ूित //True Copy// उप उप उप/सहायक उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) पंजीकार आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai अिधकरण AG (On Tour)
Initial Dictation pad attached Date
Draft dictated on Sr.PS 09/08/2016
11/08/2016 2. Draft placed before author Sr.PS
Draft proposed & placed before JM/AM the second member
Draft discussed/approved by JM/AM Second Member
Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS Sr.PS/PS
Date of pronouncement Sr.PS 12/08/2016
File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 22/08/2016
Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk
Date of dispatch of Order
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- The Principal Officer, Sarda Mines Pvt… vs ACIT(TDS)-II, BhubaneswarCuttack31 Aug 2018Allowed
Also relies on CIT Assam v. The Panbari
The Tribunal held that if machines are provided with an operator and the contractor is responsible for diesel, repairs, and maintenance, it constitutes a contract for work (Section 194-C) and not a hire contract (Section...
- The Principal Officer, Sarda Mines Pvt… vs ACIT(TDS)-II, BhubaneswarCuttack31 Aug 2018Allowed
Also relies on CIT Assam v. The Panbari
The Tribunal held that if machines are provided by a contractor with an operator, and the contractor is responsible for diesel, repairs, and maintenance, the contract is for work (Section 194-C) and not for rent (Section...
- ITO (TDS) 2(5), Mumbai vs Pyramid Properties, Navi MumbaiMumbai19 May 2016Dismissed
Also relies on CIT Assam v. The Panbari
The Tribunal held that the lease premium paid by the assessee to CIDCO was not in the nature of rent as contemplated in Section 194-I. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source and could not be treat...
- ITO (TDS) 2(5), Mumbai vs Oriental Bank of Commerce, MumbaiMumbai23 Nov 2015Dismissed
Also relies on CIT Assam v. The Panbari
The Tribunal held that the payment made for acquiring leasehold rights in land is a capital expenditure and not rent as defined under Section 194-I. Therefore, tax deduction at source was not attracted.
- ITO (TDS) 2(3), Mumbai vs Milenium Associates, Navi MumbaiMumbai6 Nov 2015Dismissed
Also relies on CIT Assam v. The Panbari
The Tribunal held that lease premium paid for acquiring leasehold rights is a capital receipt and not revenue in nature. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on such payments.
More judgments on Section 194-I
- Chandra Mani Tripathi Vijay Pratap Singh… vs Income Tax Officer 4(1) Lko New, LucknowITA 512/LKW/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Skytech Construction Private Limited, New… vs Income Tax Officer, New DelhiITA 3179/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Anita Grover, Delhi vs Income Tax Officer, DelhiITA 4305/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Smash Factor Sports Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITSSA 427/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Smash Factor Sports Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITSSA 426/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed18 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
