Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Acit(Tds) Circle - 1, Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Earnest Towers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata on 23 March, 2018
cites
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Assam Etc vs The Panbari Tea Co. Ltd on 19 April, 1965
Earnest Towers Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2012-13
That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in
law to appreciate that restrictive clauses in the deed covering the transaction, governing use
of the land, alteration etc.
Ground No. 4
That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the
applicability of the ratio of judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT vs. Panbari Tea Co.
Ltd. [57 1TR 422 (SC)(1965)] on the issue.
Section 194 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 194A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) ... vs Dcit (Osd) -1,, Mumbai on 19 January, 2018
"15. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we observe that as per section
194-1 of the Act, any person, not being an individual or a Hindu 4 I.T.A. No.
242/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & I.T.A. No. 243/Kol/2016 Assessment Year:
2011-12 M/s. Earnest Towers Pvt. Ltd undivided family, who is responsible for paying
any income by way of rent, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of
the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft
or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, shall deduct income-tax thereon at the
rate prescribed therein. Since in the present case, we have held that the lease
premium paid by the assessee was capital in nature and was not rent, therefore, we
are unable to approve the findings of TDS Officer/Assessing Officer that the assessee
was liable to deduct TDS on payment of lease premium to MMRDA. At this point, we
place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the
case of Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 24 (Del) wherein
their lordships held that for premium on acquisition of lease hold rights in the land,
lease for 90 years with substantial interest in the land, then lease premium constituted
capital expenditure.
1