ITO TDS 3(3), MUMBAI V. STANDARD WEIGHBRIDGE CO., MUMBAI

ITA 2189/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6682 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Maximum Marginal Rate; Non-deduction of tax; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37(1); 201(1)

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI .., ! , ' , # BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL, JM AND SHRI RAJENDRA, AM ITA NO.2189/MUM/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2009-10 ITA NO.2190/MUM/2013: ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12. ITO (TDS)3(3), ROOM NO.1006, 10 TH FLOOR, SMT. K.G.MITTAL AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL, CHARNI ROAD(W), MUMBAI 400002 M/S. STANDARD WEIGHBRIDGE CO. NANAVATI ESTATE CORNER, OFF TANK BUNDER, DARUKHANA, MUMBAI 400010 PAN:ABAFS 1222M ( $% / // / APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( ()$%/ RESPONDENT) $% * + * + * + * + /APPELLANT BY : MS. NEERAJA PRADHAN ()$% * + * + * + * + /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHOK MEHTA ' * ,-' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2014 ./0 * ,-' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.06.2014 1 1 1 1 / / / / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL (JM) : BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND A RE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 27/12/2012 PASSED BY LD. CI T(A)-14, MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2011-12. 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS REVENUE HAS AGITATED THE D ELETION OF DEMAND RAISED ON ACCOUNT OF TDS AND INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,28,63 ,016/- AND RS.6,05,599/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY LE VIED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 3. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194-I AND HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX OF RS .1,03,73,400/- IN A.Y 2009-10 AND RS.5,31,227/- FOR A.Y.2011-12. SIMILARLY, INTE REST OF RS.24,89,616/- AND ITA NO.2189/MUM/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2009-10 ITA NO.2190/MUM/2013: ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12. 2 RS.74,372/- IS ALSO LEVIED UNDER SECTION 201(1A) ON NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND 20011-12 RESPECTIVELY. 4. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT TAX WAS DEDUC TIBLE UNDER SECTION 194-I ON LEASE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PL OT OF A LAND OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM CIDCO I.E. PLOT NO.20A, BLOCK-B, SITU ATED AT NO.2, DRONAGIRI, NAVI MUMBAI. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 14 GROUN DS TO CONTEST DELETION MADE BY LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THIS DEMAND FOLLOWI NG JUDICIAL PRECEDENCES MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A ). 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F MUMBAI ITAT PASSED IN SEVERAL CASES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL GROUNDS WER E RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST SIMILAR DELETION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHAH GROUP BUILDERS LTD. WHICH IS DECIDED BY ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14/8/2013 IN ITA NO.4523/ MUM/2012. HE HAS PLACED COPY ON OUR RECORD AND COPY WAS ALSO GIVEN TO LD. D R. HE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DHIRENDR A RAMJI VORA VIDE ORDER DATED 9/4/2014 IN ITA NO.3179/MUM/2012, COPY OF THIS ORDE R IS ALSO PLACED ON OUR RECORD AND GIVEN TO LD. DR. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. AR THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY REVENUES APPEALS SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 6. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON O RDER PASSED BY AO AND LD. DR COULD NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION AND NO CONTRARY DECISION WA S ALSO REFERRED. 7. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AFTER HEARING BO TH THE PARTIES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF CO-ORDINAT E BENCH, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS THE CONCLUSION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS.SHAH GROUP BUILDERS LTD.,(SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED B ELOW. 2. ALTHOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 12 GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL, THE SOLITARY ISSUE ARISING OUT OF THE SAME IS WHETH ER THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM MAD E TO CIDCO DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 194-1 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). ITA NO.2189/MUM/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2009-10 ITA NO.2190/MUM/2013: ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12. 3 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO TH IS APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED CERTAIN PLOTS OF LAND IN KHARGHAR, NAV I MUMBAI ON LEASE SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM TO CIDCO. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, PART PAYMENT OF SUCH LEASE PREMIUM WAS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE TO CIDCO. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SO URCE FROM THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM MADE TO CIDCO AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 194-1 OF THE ACT AND SINCE NO SUCH TAX WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID PAYMENTS, HE ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING IT TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY I T SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR ITS FAILURE TO DEDUCT THE T AX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM MADE TO CIDCO. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. EXPLAINING ITS STAND ON THE ISSUE AND AFTE R CONSIDERING AND DISCUSSING THE SAME IN DETAIL, THE A.O. HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT MADE TO CIDCO ON ACCOUNT OF LEASE PREMI UM AND TREATED THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO DO SO FOR THE FOLLOWING REAS ONS GIVEN IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT: AT THE OUTSET, IT NEEDS TO BE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE HAS VEHEMENTLY CLAIMED THAT THE PAYM ENT REFERRED IN SHOW CAUSE DOES NOT BEAR THE CHARACTER OF RENT MENTIONED IN SE CT. 1941 AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM SUCH PAY MENT MADE TO CIDCO. THE LAND UNDER QUESTION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LESSOR TO THE ASSESSEE ON LEASE AND FOR WHICH IT HAS PAID THE PREMIUM OF RS. 70,85,01,8 70/-. THIS LUMP-SUM PAYMENT MADE BY THE LEASEE I.E. M/S. SHAH GROUP BUI LDERS LTD. (ASSESSEE) HAS BEEN MADE TO AVOID RECURRING PAYMENT BY INSTALMENTS BY THE THEM TO THE LESSOR. THE PAYMENT SO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS A RENT FOR E NJOYMENT AND OCCUPANCY OF THE IMPUGNED LAND. THE ONE TIME PAYMENT DOES NOT CH ANGE THE CHARACTER OF THIS PAYMENT AND THEREFORE IT SQUARELY FALLS WITHIN THE PARAMETER OF SECTION 1941. THIS INFERENCE ALSO GATHERS SUPPORT FROM THE JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S HMT LIM ITED - 203 ITR 820 AND THAT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE EASE OF BRAITHWAITE & CO. (1) LTD. V/S CIT 111 ITR 542. BOTH THE HIGH COURTS IN THESE CA SES HAVE RULED THAT LEASE PREMIUM PAID IN LUMP SUM IS NOTHING BUT THE RENT PA ID IN ADVANCE TO OBVIATE PERIODICAL PAYMENTS. GOING BY THE VERDICT OF THESE HONBLE HIGH COURTS, THE RULINGS ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE, THE OBLIGATION WAS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO CIDCO AS PER THE PROVISIONS U/S 194 -I OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS FURTHER NECESSARY TO MENTION THAT ADMITTEDLY VIDE LEASE AGREEMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED RIGHT O F OCCUPANCY AND RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT OF THE IMPUGNED PLOT, AND PAYMENT MADE FO R AVAILMENT OF SUCH, RIGHT IS RENT AND RENT ONLY AND NOTHING ELSE. BY CALLING IT BY SOME OTHER NAME AND NOMENCLATURE DOES NOT CHANGE ITS REAL CHARACTER I. E. RENT. THEREFORE THE SUM SO PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS RENT AND THEREFORE SQUARELY REQUIRES APPLICATION OF SECT. 1941. AT THIS JUNCTURE IT IS NECESSARY TO GO THROU GH THE EXPLANATION (I) TO SECT. 1941 WHICH PROVIDES DEFINITION OF WORD RENT FOR T HE PURPOSE OF SECT. 1941. FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND PROPER UNDERSTANDING THE RE LEVANT PART OF EXPLANATION (I) TO SECT. 1941 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- (I) RENT MEANS ANY PAYMENT, BY WHATEVER NAME CAL LED, UNDER ANY LEASE, SUB-LEASE, TENANCY OR ANY OTHER AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT FOR THE USE OF (EITHER SEPARATELY OR TOGETHER) ANY (A) LAND; OR (B) TO (H) ----- WHETHER OR NOT ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE OWNED BY THE PAYEE ITA NO.2189/MUM/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2009-10 ITA NO.2190/MUM/2013: ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12. 4 THE ASSESSEE CONVENIENTLY IGNORED TO READ THE CRUX OF THE DEFINITION OF RENT PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION (I) TO SECTION 194-I O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE DEFINITION HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE PAYMENT M ADE BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED AND FOR THE USE OF GETS COVERED BY THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 194-1 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AS A RESULT, BY CALLING LEASE RENT AS LEASE PREMIUM, DOES NOT CHANGE ITS REAL CHARACTER. THE NOMENCLATURE USE D IN RESPECT OF SUCH LEASE PREMIUM PAYMENT IS NOT DECISIVE. HERE IT IS NECESSA RY TO MENTION THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS TAKEN DUE CARE OF SUCH SITUATIONS A RISING BY USAGE OF DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY BY PROVIDING A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF RENT IN THE SECTION ITSELF. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, STATUTORY PR OVISIONS OF SECT. 1941 ESPECIALLY DEFINITION OF RENT PROVIDED IN EXPLANATI ON THERETO AND THE CASE LAWS CITED ABOVE THE UNDERSIGNED HAS NO SLIGHTEST HESIT ATION IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX U/S. 1941 AND PAY IT TO THE GOVT. TREASURY WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS REQUIR ED BY PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVI1 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE H AS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1941 AND THEREBY CHAPTER XVII B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY DEDUCTING THE TDS FROM THE LEASE RENT PAID TO THE C 1DCO AND NOT PAID IT TO THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY. AS A RESULT ASSESSEE HAS COMMI TTED DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 20 1(1) AND THEREBY IT IS AN AS SESSEE IN DEFAULT. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEF AULT AND DIRECTED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF INTEREST U/S. 201(1A). 4. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 201(1)/ 201(1A) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON ITS BEHALF BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE STAND THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO CIDCO NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE RENT WITHI N THE MEANING OF SECTION 194-1 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AND THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) & 201( 1A) OF THE ACT. THE SAID SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE H IM WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE A.O. FOR HIS COMMENTS. IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE A.O. OFFERED HIS COMMENTS ON THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE A.O. ON THE SAID SUBMISSIONS IN THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE INVOLVING IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY HIM IN DETAIL VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF NAVI MUMBAI SEZ PVT. LTD. ACC ORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF NAVI MUMBAI SEZ PVT. LTD. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE INVOLVING IDENTICAL FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESS EE IN RESPECT OF LEASED PLOT OF LAND TO CIDCO DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NO T IN THE NATURE OF RENT AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 194-I OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM MADE TO CIDCO. T HE DEMAND RAISED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING IT AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT VIDE AN ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION, THEREFORE, WAS CANCELLED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF SHREE NAMAN HOTELS PVT. LTD. HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE AN ORDER OF EVEN DATE PASSED IN ITA NO. 688 TO 691/MUM /2012 BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL PASSED IN TH E CASE OF M/S WADHWA & ASSOCIATES REALTORS PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 3-7-2013 PASSED IN ITA NO. 695/MUM/2012. IN THE CASE OF M/S WADHWA & ASSOCIATES REALTORS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ITA NO.2189/MUM/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2009-10 ITA NO.2190/MUM/2013: ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12. 5 DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 9 TO 10 OF ITS ORDER DATED 3-7-2013 (SUPRA):- 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK AND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPO N BY THE RIVAL PARTIES. THE ENTIRE GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND THE PREMIUM PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. MMRDA LTD. FOR THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS ACQUIRED B Y THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE LEASE DEED DT. 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2004. IT IS THE SAY OF THE REVENUE THAT THIS LEASE PREMIUM WAS LIABLE FOR DEDU CTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FAILING WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TREATED AS ASSE SSEE IN DEFAULT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH LEASE PREMIUM IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. FURTHER, THE SAID LEASE PREMIUM DOES NO T COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF RENT AS PROVIDED U/S. 194-1 OF THE ACT. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE LEASE DEED AS EXH IBITED FROM PAGE-1 TO 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A CAREFUL READING OF THE SAID LEASE DEED TRANSPIRES THAT THE PREMIUM IS NOT PAID UNDER A LEA SE BUT IS PAID AS A PRICE FOR OBTAINING THE LEASE, HENCE IT PRECEDES TH E GRANT OF LEASE. THEREFORE, BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, IT CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE RENT WHICH IS PAID PERIODICALLY. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS FURTHER SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT TO MMRD IS ALSO FOR ADDITIONAL BUILT UP ARE AND ALSO FOR GRANTING FREE OF FSI AREA, SUCH PAYMENT CANNOT BE E QUATED TO RENT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE MMRD IN EXERCISE OF POWER U/S. 43 R.W. SEC. 37(1) OF THE MAHARASHTRA TOWN PLANNING ACT 1966, MRTP ACT A ND OTHER POWERS ENABLING THE SAME HAS APPROVED THE PROPOSAL TO MODI FY REGULATION 4A(II) AND THEREBY INCREASED THE FSI OF THE ENTIRE G BLO CK OF BKC. THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR BKC SPECIFY THE PERMISSIBLE FSI. PURSUANT TO SUCH PROVISIONS, THE ASSESSEE BECAME EN TITLED FOR ADDITIONAL FSI AND HAS FURTHER ACQUIRED/PURCHASED THE ADDITIO NAL BUILT UP AREA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL AREA ON THE AFORESAID PL OT. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO MMRD UNDER DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FOR ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD LAND AND ADDITIONAL BUILT UP AREA. THE D ECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE (SUPRA) AND MUKUND LTD (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN WELL DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS HIS ORDER. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF KHIMLINE PUMPS LTD. (SUPRA) SQUARELY AND DIRECTLY APPLY ON T HE FACTS OF THE CASE WHEREIN THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS H ELD THAT PAYMENT FOR ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD LAND IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECI SIONS VIS--VIS PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194-1, DEFINITION OF RENT AS PROVIDED UNDER TH E SAID PROVISION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAMPER OR INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WE CONFIRM. 6. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WEL L AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF WADHWA & ASSOCIATES REALTORS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS SHREE NAMAN HOTELS PVT. LTD. (SU PRA) DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE S AID CASES BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO CIDCO NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF RENT AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 194-I OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT L IABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE SAID PAYMENT AND HENCE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ITA NO.2189/MUM/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2009-10 ITA NO.2190/MUM/2013: ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12. 6 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19TH JUNE, 2014. 1 * ./0 2'3 19/06/2014 / * : SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (I.P.BANSAL) ' ' ' ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 2' DATED : 19 TH JUNE, 2014. VM. 1 * (,; < ;0, 1 * (,; < ;0, 1 * (,; < ;0, 1 * (,; < ;0,/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $% / THE APPELLANT 2. ()$% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. =() / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. = / CIT(A)-13, MUMBAI 5. ;@: (,' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. :A B / GUARD FILE. 1' 1' 1' 1' / BY ORDER, );, (, //TRUE COPY// C CC C/ // /D D D D (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI