“TDS on rent”

TDS / TCSSection 194ISection 194I50 judgments

The decision most relied on for TDS on rent is CIT v. NIIT Ltd. (318 ITR 289), cited in 79 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on TDS on rent

CIT v. NIIT Ltd.

318 ITR 289 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

A composite agreement, even if charges are broken down, cannot be dissected to apply Section 194I for TDS on rent when the agreement is a business arrangement for mutual obligations.

CIT (TDS) v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

375 ITR 23 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Payment for transmission or wheeling of electricity does not constitute rent under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act as it does not involve payment for the use of land, building, or machinery, and possession is a necessary element for rent.

Rajesh Projects (India) (p.) Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax

78 Taxmann.com 263 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee is not liable for TDS default under section 201(1) on payments to NOIDA Authority for lease rents, but the interest liability under section 201(1A) may still apply if the deductee has offered such income. However, the conclusion regarding TDS default applies prospectively.

Japan Airlines Co. Limited v. CIT

377 ITR 372 · 2015 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Payments for services are not rent and thus do not attract TDS under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, unless the payment is specifically for the use of an asset in the nature of land, building, machinery etc. Section 194C applies to such service payments.

ITO v. Tejmalbhai & Co.

99 ITD 399 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

The section under which tax is deducted at source (TDS) by the payer does not determine the nature of income in the hands of the recipient. Income received as rent is assessable as business income, not income from house property, even if TDS is wrongly deducted under Section 194-I.

ACIT v. Accenture Services (P.) Ltd.

44 SOT 290 · 2011 · ITAT

citing judgments

Payments for hired taxis, where the operator retains possession and control, are subject to TDS under section 194C, not section 194-I. Section 194-I does not apply to payments for transport services involving the use of vehicles if possession is not transferred.

Karwat Steel Traders v. ITO

145 ITD 370 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on rent or interest payments is deleted if the recipient has furnished Form 15G, as this indicates no tax was deductible at source or tax was not required to be deducted.

Sunil Kumar Gupta v. ACIT

389 ITR 38 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges paid by a tenant are considered rent and are subject to TDS under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, even if paid to a third party, as the term 'rent' is broadly interpreted to include payments for the use of property and associated services.

Judgments citing TDS on rent

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. N Rose Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6328/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 194Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 250Section 4S

assessee was asked whether TDS has been deducted on rent paid to tenant. In response, the assessee submitted that it has not deducted TDS on rent paid to the tenant. Accordingly, notice under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was issued to the assessee requesting it to furnish

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4863/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

draft assessment order vide para No.10 it is proposed for addition of Rs.4,01,11,222 for failure of deduction of TDS on rent & conducting charges. This addition was proposed U/s.40(a)(ia) @30% on total claim of expenditure. This proposal was communicated to the assessee vide draft assessment order ... order, proposed to make the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the Appellant has not deducted the TDS on rent. The Appellant claimed that it had filed complete details related to rent expenses on 02/05/2021, explaining the AO that the TDS have been deducted

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4854/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

draft assessment order vide para No.10 it is proposed for addition of Rs.4,01,11,222 for failure of deduction of TDS on rent & conducting charges. This addition was proposed U/s.40(a)(ia) @30% on total claim of expenditure. This proposal was communicated to the assessee vide draft assessment order ... proposed to make the disallowance_u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the Appellant has not deducted the TDS on rent. However, the addition was finalized making disallowance of rent expenses to the tune of Rs. 54,63,632/-. If such addition was required

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aakar Bhavan vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

ITA 4851/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

draft assessment order vide para No.10 it is proposed for addition of Rs.4,01,11,222 for failure of deduction of TDS on rent & conducting charges. This addition was proposed U/s.40(a)(ia) @30% on total claim of expenditure. This proposal was communicated to the assessee vide draft assessment order ... draft assessment order vide para No.10 it is proposed for addition of Rs.4,01,11,222 for failure of deduction of TDS on rent & conducting charges. This addition was proposed U/s.40(a)(ia) @30% on total claim of expenditure. This proposal was communicated to the assessee vide draft assessment order

Yogita Manoj Tatooskar, Pune vs. ITO 12(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2714/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2714/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yogita Manoj Tatooskar, V The Income Tax Officer, 504, Anandban, Chs, Ashok S Ward-12(1), Pune. Path, Maharashtra – 411004. Pan: Abopt9276A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Miss Indira R Adkil – Add.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13; Dated 28.10.2024; Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 15.11.2013. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Appellant Had Failed To Submit The

Section 143(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur vs. Grand Motors, Raipur

ITA 544/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Grand Motors, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Lodhi Para Chowk, Pandri, Raipur Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aagfg8524P

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT- DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

Raipur u/s 139(1) of the Act and addition u/s 40(a)(ia) for Rs.7,42,500/-, on account of non-deduction of TDS on rent. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority i.e., Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A

Gurpartap Singh Kairon, Chandigarh, India vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.”

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal & Ms. Ashisha Mittal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

TDS made? if not made reason thereof with supporting evidence. No, The house property being residential accommodation the tenant had not deducted TDS on rent paid by them. If any communication had bought to my notice earlier i would have taken necessary steps to submit at that relevant point

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 is allowed

ITA 3278/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Us The Effective Ground Which Has Been Raised Is Ground No.3, Wherein Assessee Has Challenged That Gst Amount Cannot Be Considered For The Purpose Of Computing Presumptive Income U/S.44B Of The Act. For The Sake Of Ready Reference, The

Section 143(3)Section 44B

well. g. Circular No. 04/2008 dated 28 April 2008 (Page 576 of Legal Paper Book) is applicable for TDS on rent under Section 194-1. The base for Section 194-1 is "Income. Section 44B is a presumptive provision where the base of taxation is 'amount paid or payable

M/S. Sabarmati Gas Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 368/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Sabarmati Gas Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit Plot No.907, Sector 21 Vs Ahmedabad-3. Gandhinagar 382 021 Pan : Aakcs 0110 N

For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40

examined during the assessment proceedings. But he pointed out that it was explained to the ld.Pr.CIT that the assessee had deducted TDS on rent on which provisions of TDS was applicable pointing out that while the assessee had claimed rent expenditure of Rs.2.50 crores, TDS had been deducted ... explanation of the assessee, and no addition had been made to the income of the assessee on account of non-deduction of TDS on rent expenses as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 26. Considering the admission of the ld.counsel for the assessee that

Expertease (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1594/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Renu Jauhrii Ta. No. 1594/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2009-10) Expertease (India) Pvt Ltd, Vs Ito (Tds)-1(2)(2) 3102, Gokul Concorde, Roomno. 805, 8Th Flr, Thakur Village, Smt K G Mittal Kandivali (East), Ayurvedic Hospitalbldg Mumbai-400101. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. Pan/Gir No. Aabce2693P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jotwani. Ar Respondent By Shri P.D Chougule. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))- 59 Mumbai Passed U/Sec 201(1)/201(1A) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Brought To The Knowledge Of The Bench That, The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Electronically On 07.12.2018 & Emphasized On Facts & Relied On The Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assesse Company As Under:

Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 201

Rent-Default u/s 201(1)/201(1A)- During the course of survey proceeding it is noticed that the assessee company failed to deduct TDS on rent amounting to Rs.41,72,943/-.In reply to Q.No.16 of the statement recorded on that date it is stated that the necessary details ... Interest u/s 201(1A) Total demand payable Less-Paid on 20.06.2008 Balance Payable 854 307 1161 813 348 6.Interest on Late payment of TDS on RENT u/s201(1A) During the course of survey proceeding it is noticed that the assessee company failed to pay the interest shown at Rs.29094

Rekha Maheshwari, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 1Section 143(1)Section 194ISection 199

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT

ITO, Ward-1(5), Faridabad vs. Mehar Chand, Ballabgarh

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6416/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaito, Vs. Mehar Chand, Ward-1(5), B-125, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh, Haryana Pan: Ajrpm8412A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Saini, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 40

outside truck hire charges” of Rs.4,91,67,850/-. Since the trucks form part of plant & machinery the assessee was required to deduct TDS on rent for the use of any machinery or plant or equipment. Since the truck form part of plant & machinery, assessee is to deduct TDS

ITO Ward 3(1), Delhi vs. Asian Pacific Learnimg Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1958/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaito, Vs. Asian Pacific Learning Ltd, Ward-3(1), D-14, First Floor, Lajpat Delhi Nagar, Parti-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagca9071N Assessee By : Shri Shambhu Lal Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Shambhu Lal Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

accounts. A copy of all expenses in the head, copy of relevant parties account and copy of TDS on land and building and TDS on Rent of equipment account enclosed for your reference(PB 8 page 1-46). As such the Ld A.O not verified the fact correctly and there

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Group M Media (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are stand dismissed

ITA 3087/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhco No. 137/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2011-12) Group M Media (India) Vs. Dcit-12(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 145, 1 St Floor, 8Th Floor, Commerz Aayakar Bhavan, International Business M.K. Road, Park, Oberoi Garden Mumbai-400020 City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-12(2)(2) Vs. Group M Media (India) Room No. 145, 1 St Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 8Th Floor, Commerz M.K. Road, International Business Mumbai-400020 Park, Oberoi Garden City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh Rakh Date Of Hearing 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10 .2023

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh Rakh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

137/Mum/2021 M/s Group Media M (India) Pvt. Ltd. Act for non-deduction of TDS, without appreciating that Section 1941 of the Act contemplates TDS on rent paid for use of any land or building wherein in the present case, the amount was paid for not using of land or building

M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation, Indore vs. ACIT (TDS), Indore

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 196/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10Section 119Section 139Section 194Section 201(1)Section 250

regards, the First ground of appeal that whether the assessee was rightly treated as assessee in default for non deduction of TDS on rent paid to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti we find that the payee i.e. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is State Government undertaking and it income is exempt

M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation, Indore vs. ACIT (TDS), Indore

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 195/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10Section 119Section 139Section 194Section 201(1)Section 250

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

this explanation of the assessee is not 35 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT found at fault by the ld. PCIT. As regards the TDS on rent the same was on account of the rent and taxi hire charges and was not deductible being below the threshold limit under

A3Logics (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

issues which he ought to have made on followings grounds: 1. Under-deduction of TDS on professional /consultancy/technical/legal services 2. Under-deduction of TDS on rent expenses 3. Late deposit of employee's contribution to ESI/PF 4. Non-compliance with provisions of Chapter XVII-B The assessee in response, filed ... submit supporting evidences and documents, on the following issues: 1. Under-deduction of TDS on professional /consultancy/technical/legal services 2. Under-deduction of TDS on rent expenses 3. Late deposit of employee's contribution to ESI/PF 4. Non-compliance with provisions of Chapter XVII-B These balances were appearing

Shri Kailash Chandra, Barmer vs. ITO, Ward-1, Barmer

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 119/JODH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194Section 194ISection 40Section 40a

grossly erred in rejecting the legal & factual submission furnished by the assessee and arbitrary hold that the assessee was obliged to deduct TDS on rent paid as such holding & disallowance of deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) is outside the jurisdiction of Section 154 of the Act. 4. That