ITO, Bangalore V. M/s Railway House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 1339/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0423 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P R SURESH
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 194C; 201(1); 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1339, 1340 & 1344/BANG/2015 AND 1343/BANG/2014 (ASST. YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT VS. M/S RAILWAY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.197/B, M.G COLONY, BANGALORE-560 023. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWALA, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PR SURESH, CA DATE OF HEARING : 26-04-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-04-2016 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 13, BANGALORE ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 2 DATED 19/3/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, 20 09-10, 2012-13 AND 2013-14. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED I N ALL THESE APPEALS WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THESE APPEALS BY WAY OF T HIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY, TH E FACTS IN ITA NO.1339/BANG/2015 ARE STATED HERE UNDER: 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : (1) THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO THE FACTS AND NATURE OF THE CASE ON HAND. (2) THE LEARNED. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO DEVELOPER. (3) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEES AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER, THE WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT LIKE FORMATION OF ROADS, CHIP CARPETING, STORM WATER DRAINS ETC., CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE CONTRACT INCLUDED WORKS CONTRACT WHICH ATTRACTS PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C. (4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DEVELOPER ARE IN THE NATURE ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 3 OF COMPOSITE CONTRACTS FOR WORKS FOR WHICH PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE. (5) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED CLAUSE IV.2 AND 5.1(B), 5.2(B)(C) OF ADDENDUM TO THE AGREEMENT DATED 3/12/2008 WHEREIN, THOUGH THE AGREEMENT IS FOR THE ACQUIRING OF LANDS AND FORMATION OF LAYOUTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LANDS, AFTER ACQUISITION, ARE SOLD TO THE SOCIETY AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAYOUT IS UNDERTAKEN WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENT OF AN UNDERLYING CONTRACT. HENCE, TDS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE DEVELOPMENT WORKS OF THE LAYOUT. (6) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING PARA 6.1(B) OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 3/12/2008 WHEREIN, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT RS.240/SQ.FT. IS TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, CESSES, ETC AND RS.360/SQ.FT IS TOWARDS LAND COST THEREBY ENSURING THAT PAYMENT IS ON PARTICULAR MILESTONES OF COMPLETION OF CONTRACT. (7) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES WHILE ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 4 (8) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS PRAYED THAT EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF CONTRACT FOR PROCUREMENT OF LAND WHETHER THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF CONTRACT FOR DEVELOPMENTAL WORKS ALSO, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT ENVISAGES THE RELEASE OF PAYMENT ON A MILESTONE BASIS WHICH IS TYPICAL OF CONTRACTS? 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RESPOND ENT SOCIETY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA STAT E CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT. THE SOCIETY WAS SET UP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING THE LAND AND DEVELOPING THE SAME INTO THE HOUSE SITES T O ITS MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATE MEMBERS. THE SURVEY OPERATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF THE RESPONDENT SOCIETY ON 14/10/2013 BY ITO, TDS W ARD-18(1), BANGALORE (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS TDS OFFICER). SUB SEQUENTLY, TDS OFFICER CALLED FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE RES PONDENT SOCIETY INCLUDING DETAILS OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTATING WI TH THE DEVELOPERS ENTERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF LANDS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAME. BASED ON THE INFORMATION SO COLLECTED, THE TDS OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE RESPONDENT SOCIETY HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C OF THE ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 5 ACT ON THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS PAID TO THE DEVEL OPER AND CONTRACTOR IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE RESPONDENT SOCIETY. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE TDS OFFICER THAT THE RESPONDEN T SOCIETY HAD PURCHASED DEVELOPED SITES FROM THE DEVELOPER. IT I S CONTRACT OF SALE OF DEVELOPED SITES. THUS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PR OVISION OF SEC. 194C WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE DEVE LOPER. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WERE BRUSHED A SIDE AND TDS OFFICER HAD PROCEEDED WITH TREATING THE RESPONDENT OF THE ASSESSEE, AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND DEMANDED TAX UNDER PROVIS ION OF SEC. 201(1) AND INTEREST THERE ON U/S 201(1)A AND ACCORDINGLY O RDERS WERE PASSED UNDER AFORESAID PROVISIONS. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDERS, THE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ROLE OF THE RESPON DENT SOCIETY WAS FACILITATOR AND THE SOCIETY ONLY PROCURED DEVELOPED SITES AND DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE NORMS PRESCRIBED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS A CASE OF A PURCHAS E OF THE SITE AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF WORKS CONTRACT I NVOLVED IN THE CONTRACT. THUS IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF SE C. 194C WERE NOT APPLICABLE AND THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DEC ISION OF JURISIDICONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(A) V S. KARNATAKA STATE ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 6 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETY IN ITA NO.1260 OF 2005 AND ACCORDINGLY THE CIT(A) C ANCELLED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TDS OFFICER U/SS 201(1) AND 20 1(1A) OF THE ACT. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE U S WITH THE PRESENT APPEALS. 6. THE LEARNED SR. DR DRAWN OUR ATTENTION AND SUBMI TTED THAT THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE RESPONDENT SOCIETY WITH TH E DEVELOPER NAMELY LAKSHMAN AND ESWAR ARE IN THE NATURE OF WORK S CONTRACT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, HE HAD DRAWN OUR ATTEN TION TO THE CLAUSE 6.1 OF THE SUB CLAUSE (A) (B) (C) AND (D) OF CLAUS E 6.1 OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE RESPONDENT OF THE DEVELOPER. THE RE LEVANT CLAUSE READS AS UNDER:- 6.1 THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS STATED ABOVE SHALL BE PAID BY THE FIRST PARTY SOCIETY TO THE SECOND PARTY DEVE LOPER IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: (A) A SUM OF RS.1,00,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE CRORE ONL Y) AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT. ACCORDING LY THE SOCIETY HEREBY PAID A SUM OF RS.1,00,00,000/- (RUPE ES ONE CRORE ONLY) BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BEARING NO.; DATED 03.12.2008, DRAWN ON VIJAYA BANK, ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 7 GANDHI BAZAR BRACH, BANGALORE IN FAVOUR OF SECOND P ARTY AND RECEIPT OF WHICH THE SECOND PARTY DEVELOPER HER EBY ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES. (B) THE BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION SHALL BE PAID IN STAGES DEPENDING UPON PROGRESS FOR ACQUISITION, APPROVALS, DEVELOPMENT ETC BASED ON THE PROGRESS OF THE PROJEC T TO THE SECOND PARTY DEVELOPER FROM TIME TO TIME TO COMPLET E THE PROJECT WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. HOWEVER AFTE R REGISTERING THE CONVERTED LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE FIR ST PARTY I.E SOCIETY, THE FIRST PARTY SHALL RELEASE 60% COST OF THE SITAL AREA I.E 60% OF 600/- IS RS.360/- PER SQ. FT AS LAN D COST AND BALANCE 40% COST OF THE SITAL AREA I.E 40% OF 600/- IS RS.240/- PER SQ. FT TOWARDS APPROVALS, CESSES AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. (C) 5% OF THE TOTAL COST OF SITES SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE FIRST PARTY SOCIETY AS SECURITY DEPOSIT (EMD) AS RE TENTION AMOUNT AND IT SHALL BE PAID TO THE SECOND PARTY DEV ELOPER AFTER COMPLETION OF SIX MONTHS MAINTENANCE PERIOD STIPULATED HEREIN BELOW. (D) THE AFORESAID AMOUNT RECEIVED AS ADVANCE (AS PE R CLAUSE 6.1 A & B) AND DURING THE COURSE OF IMPLEMEN TATION OF THE PROJECT AS PROVIDED HEREINABOVE SHALL BE ADJ USTED BY THE SECOND PARTY DEVELOPER TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATI ON OF THE SITES AS PER 6A & 6B TO BE CONVEYED TO THE MEMB ERS OF THE SOCIETY. ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 8 7. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT MERE PERUSAL OF THE ABOV E CLAUSE GOES TO PROVE THAT THE AGREEMENT WERE ENTERED ONLY TO DEVEL OPMENT OF THE SITE WHICH INVOLVES WORKS AS HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF KAUTILYA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY DECIDED BY THIS TRIBU NAL. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT SOCIETY SUBMITTED THAT THE TERMS AND AGR EEMENT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE AND IT IS A CASE OF CONTRACT OF PURCHASE OF THE DEVELOPED SITES AND THE SUB SEC (A) AND (B) ONLY ST IPULATES THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE, AS PER THE STAGE OF COMPLETION OF THE WOR KS IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID FOR WORK IN TERMS O F THE WORKS CONTRACT. HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE DEVELOPER IN FAVOUR OF THE MEMBERS OF THE RESPONDEN T SOCIETY, TO SAY THAT IT IS PURELY A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF D EVELOPED SITES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS WHETHE R THERE WAS AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO DED UCT TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT PAID BY THE RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO THE DEVELOPER VIZ. LAKSHMAN. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 9 PAYMENT WERE MADE AS PER THE STAGE OF COMPLETION OF WORK CONTRACT BUT THE CONTRACT IS ONLY FOR PURCHASE OF DEVELOPED SITES AS EVIDENCED BY SALE DEEDS. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS COVERED BY T HE DECISION OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF KAUTILYA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETY LTD., WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 8. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS WHETHER THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT-CO-OPERATIVE SOCIET Y TO SHRI LAKSHMAN, STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO ACQUIRE LANDS ARE IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENT MADE FOR ANY WORK CONT RACT OR CONSIDERATION PAID FOR PURCHASE OF SITES. IT IS NEE DLESS TO MENTION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194C ARE APPLICA BLE ONLY TO WORKS CONTRACT. ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT PAY MENTS MADE TO SHRI LAKSHMAN ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF WORK S CONTRACT, QUESTION OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194C DOES NOT ARISE. TO DETERMIN E THE CHARACTER OF PAYMENTS, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO LOOK INTO TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. WE HAVE PERUSED THE AGREEMENT DATED 11/4/2005 ENTERED INTO BY THE RESPONDENT-CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETY WITH SHRI LAKSHMAN AS WELL AS THE SALE DEED ENTERED INTO BY SHRI LAKSHMAN WITH MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY O N 27/8/2014 PLACED AT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. CLAU SES 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11/4/2005 ARE AS UNDER : 2. DEVELOPMENT OF LAYOUT & FORMATION OF SITES: ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 10 THE SECOND PARTY SHALL ACQUIRE THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AFTER SECURING CONVERSION OF THE SAME FROM AGRICULTURE TO NON-AGRICULTURE RESIDENTIAL USE, APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN SANCTION FROM BMRDA/COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEVELOP THE LAYOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SANCTIONED PLAN CONFIRMING TO THE ZONAL REGULATIONS OF THE BMRDA; 3. FACILITIES & AMENITIES TO BE PROVIDED IN THE LAYOUT: (A) WIDE ASPHALTED ROADS RANGING FROM 30 TO 60 AS PER SANCTIONED PLAN. (B) WATER & SANITARY CONNECTIONS TO EACH SITE WITH FEEDER & SUB MAIN CONNECTIONS; (C) ELECTRIFICATION WITH OVERHEAD LINES AND TRANSFORMERS, ADEQUATE STREET LIGHTS AS PER KPTCL NORMS, (D) DEDICATED TELEPHONE EXCHANGE; MILK BOOTHS. KPTCL EXTENSION COUNTER, POLICE OUT POST. BUS TERMINUS. SHOPPING ARCADE INCLUDING VEGETABLE MARKET ETC ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 11 (E) OVERHEAD TANK/SUMP TANK CONNECTED TO BOREWELLS IN O RDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY: (F) ROAD SIDE TREE PLANTATION WITH TREE GUARDS. 4. SITES TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE SOCIETY FOR ALLOTMENT TO ITS MEMBERS; (A) THE SECOND PARTY SHALL RESERVE ALL THE 'INTERMITTENT SITES (EXCLUDING 50 INTERMITTENT SITES OF VARIOUS DIMENSIONS TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE SECON D PARTY) FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRST PARTY. (B) AS SOON AS THE SECOND PARTY INFORMS THE FIRST PARTY OF THE FORMATION OF THE SITES FOR T HE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRST PARTY, THE FIRS T PARTY SHALL ALLOT THE SAME TO ITS MEMBERS AND INFORM THE SECOND PARTY ACCORDINGLY. (C) AFTER SUCH ALLOTMENT, THE SECOND PARTY SHALL CONVEY THE SITE TO THE ALLOTTEE AFTER R ECEIPT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION (AT THE RATES STIPULATED IN CLAUSE 5 HEREIN BELOW) FROM THE FIRST PARTY BY EXECUTING AND REGISTERING THE SALE DEED IN THE JURISDICTIONAL SUB - REGISTRARS OFFICE. (D) IN RESPECT OF ALL THE CORNER SITES AND 50 INTERMITTENT SITES (RESERVED FOR LAND OWNERS ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 12 AND/OR THEIR NOMINEE) RETAINED BY THE SECOND PARTY SHALL BE DISPOSED OFF BY SECOND PARTY IN THE MANNER HE DEEMS FIT. CLAUSES 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE SALE DEED DATED 27/8/2014 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE VENDOR AND CONFIRMING PARTY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, TODAY HANDED OVER ACTUAL VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE SITE TO THE PURCHASER. PURSUANT TO THIS DEED OF CONVEYANCE, A SEPARATE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED CONFIRMING THE SITE NUMBER, DIME NSION AND BOUNDARY. 2. THE PURCHASER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO HOLD, POSSESS, B UILD UPON AND ENJOY THE SCHEDULE SITE HEREBY CONVEYED AND THE RENTS AND PROFITS RECEIVED THERE FROM WITHOUT ANY DISTURB ANCE OR INTERFERENCE BY THE VENDOR/DEVELOPER/CONFIRMING PAR TY AND/OR ANY OTHER PERSON CLAIMING THROUGH OR UNDER T HEM. 3. THE SCHEDULE SITE IS ONE OF THE INTERMEDIATE SITE F ORMED IN THE PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT FORMED BY THE VENDOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF KOUTILYA HOUSING BUILDING CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., I.E. THE CONFORMING PARTY H EREIN AND ACCORDINGLY CONVEYED THE SAME TO THE PURCHASER UNDE R THIS SALE DEED. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CLAUSES REVEALS THAT IT IS A CASE OF SALE OF DEVELOPED SITES OF THE DEVELOPER TO INDIVID UAL ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 13 MEMBERS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE SOCIETY W AS ONLY ACTING AS A FACILITATOR. THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT INV OLVE ANY WORKS CONTRACT. IT IS A CASE OF SALE OF PLOTS TO M EMBERS OF SOCIETY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS SETTLED LAW BY NOW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194C ARE NOT APPLICABLE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLD THE SAME. 10. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL CLAUSES ARE FOUND IN THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE DEVELOPER IN FAVOUR OF MEMBERS OF S OCIETY IN THIS CASE ALSO. THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE AS PER STAGE OF COMPLETION OF WORK, DOESNT HAVE IMPACT ON THE TRUE NATURE OF CONTRACT ENTERED INTO. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF KAUTILYA HOUSE BLDG. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., TO WHICH ONE OF US I.E HONBLE ACCOUN TANT MEMBER IS AUTHOR OF THE ORDER, WE HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENT SO CIETY IS NOT UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT M ADE TO THE DEVELOPER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1339, 1340 & 1344 /B/15 AND 1343/B/14 14 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AR E DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH APR, 2016 . SD/- SD/- (VIJAYPAL RAO) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED : 29/04/2016 VMS COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REG ISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.