ITA No. 12/PN/2014, (Assessment Year: 2013-2014). Case: Income Tax Officer Vs Rajmata Jijau Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | ITA No. 12/PN/2014, (Assessment Year: 2013-2014) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Rajesh Damor and For Respondents: N.R. Bhagwat |
| Judges | G.S. Pannu, Member (A) and R.S. Padvekar, Member (J) |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 12A, 194-I, 194I, 201(1), 201(1A) |
| Judgement Date | December 29, 2014 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
G.S. Pannu, Member (A), (ITAT Pune 'A' Bench)
-
The captioned appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Pune dated 07.10.2013 which, in turn, has arisen from an order dated 28.12.2012 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14.
-
In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of Appeal:--
1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the demand raised of Rs. 19,31,320/- u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of lease premium payment paid to Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority (PCNTDA).
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in considering the fact that the premium paid to PCNTDA is upfront payment as pre-condition for entering into lease agreement.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the deed entered into by the deductor with PCNTDA was not a transfer, deed but a lease deed and explanation to section 194I clearly stipulates that any payment by whatever name called under any lease deed/agreement is to be taken as rent for TDS purpose.
-
In sum and substance, the solitary dispute in this appeal is in relation to the stand of the income-tax authorities that assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on payments made to Pimpri Chinchwar New Township Development Authority (PCNTDA) on lease premium paid for a land taken on lease for 99 years. As per the income-tax authorities, assessee having failed to deduct the tax u/s. 194-I of the Act was to be treated as an assessee in default in terms of section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The CIT(A) has disagreed with the Assessing Officer on this aspect on the ground that the payment of lease premium to PCNTDA in terms of the lease deed for land did not amount to 'rent' within the meaning of section 194-I of the Act. In coming to such conclusion, he has relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Navi Mumbai SEZ (P.) Ltd. in ITA No. 738 to 7741/Mum/2012 dated 12.08.2013. Against such a decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us.
-
Before us, it was a common point between the parties that an identical controversy has been considered by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Camp Education Society vide ITA No. 2134/PN/2013 dated 27.10.2014...
To continue reading
Request your trial