Income-tax Officer, V. Shri Ajay N. Yerwadekar, Pune

ITA 636/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1304 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAVE
• Keywords: Maximum Marginal Rate
• Section: 12A; 201(1)

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE !' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO.636/PN/2014 '$ % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 ITO (TDS)-3, PUNE . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI AJAY N. YERWADEKAR, PLOT NO.12, SECTOR NO.24, PRADHIKARAN, NIGDI, PUNE 411 044. PAN NO. AAAPY9775E . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ABHAY AVCHAT / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI . HITENDRA NINAVE ' / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 09-12-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER : 1. THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE DEMAN D RAISED OF RS. 74,67,727/- U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF LEASE PREMIUM PAYMENT PAID TO PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PCNTDA). / DATE OF HEARING :11.08.2015 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:14.08.2015 2 ITA NO.636/PN/2014 2. THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA IS UPFRONT PAYMENT AS PRE-CO NDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT. 3. THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE DEED ENTERED INTO BY THE DEDUCTOR WITH PCNTDA WAS N OT A TRANSFER DEED BUT A LEASE DEED AND EXPLANATION TO SECTION 19 41 CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT ANY PAYMENT BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED UNDER ANY LEASE DEED/AGREEMENT IS TO BE TAKEN AS RENT FOR TDS PURPO SE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF SEA FACE BEACH RESORT, POLLY HOUSE, SHRI SAMARTH ENGIN EERING COMPANY BUSINESSES. DURING THE COURSE OF TDS VERIFICATION IN THE CASE OF PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( PCNTDA) ON 07-11-2012 IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENT ERED INTO LEASE AGREEMENT FOR 99 YEARS WITH PCNTDA ON THE TERMS AND C ONDITIONIS LAID DOWN BY THE LESSOR IN THE LEASE DEED DATED 28-02-2011 FOR PLOT NO.1/1 IN SECTOR NO.32A OF THE PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPM ENT AUTHORITY, AS PER THE TERMS OF LEASE DEED. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER REPRODUCED CLAUSE 2 OF THE LEASE DEED AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I OF THE I.T. ACT ARE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF RS.6,07,13,928/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN RE SPECT OF PREMIUM FOR ACQUISITION OF LEASE HOLD RIGHTS FOR 99 YEARS AS THE SAME WAS NOTHING BUT RENT. ACCORDINGLY, HE RAISED DEMAND U/S.201(1)/201(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT AFTER CONFRONTING THE ASSE SSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 4. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT PAYMENT OF LEASE PRE MIUM TO PCNTDA WAS A PRECONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEME NT AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAME WAS PAID UNDE R THE TERMS OF LEASE AGREEMENT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE STAMP D UTY HAS BEEN PAID ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY LEAS E PREMIUM. 3 ITA NO.636/PN/2014 RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE MU MBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NAVI MUMBAI SEZ PVT. LTD. VIDE ITA NO.738 TO 7741/MUM/2012 FOR A.YRS. 2006-07 TO 2009 -10 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT LEASE PREMIUM PAID BY THE A SSESSEE TO THE CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF MAHARASHTRA LTD. (C IDCO) FOR ACQUIRING DEVELOPMENT AND LEASEHOLD RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF 60 YEARS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S.194I OF THE I.T. ACT, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN RAISING THE DEMAND U/S.201(1)/201(1A). 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND AN IDENTICAL ISSUE H AD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. PREETAM MED ICAL FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE VIDE ITA NO.190/PN/2014 O RDER DATED 16-01-2015 WHEREIN SIMILAR DEMAND U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) WAS R AISED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA. TH E CIT(A) DELETED SUCH DEMAND AND ON APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, T HE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO TH E DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT IN RESPEC T OF THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELO PMENT AUTHORITY (PCNTDA). IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO 99 YEARS LEASE AGREEMENT THROUGH ITS CHAI RMAN WITH PCNTDA FOR USING 3261 SQ. MTRS. OF LAND LOCATED ON PLOT NO.1, IN SECTOR 13, CHIKHALI, TALUKA HAVELI, PUNE. THE SAID LAND WAS TO BE USED FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES AS PER CLAUSE (N) OF THE LEASE DEED. THE ASSESSEE PAID LE ASE PREMIUM OF RS.1,37,36,963/- FOR THE SAID PLOT AND FURTHER AGREED TO PAY SUM OF RS.100/- PER ANNUM FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF LEASE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER (TDS) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM TO PCNTDA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CA USE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE DEDUCTOR. IN RE PLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN IT AND P CNTDA WAS A TRANSACTION OF SALE AND FURTHER APPROPRIATE TAX RETUR N HAD BEEN FILED BY IT. 4 ITA NO.636/PN/2014 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTIO N BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS NOT THAT OF TRANSFER, BUT OF LEASE AND THER E WAS NO TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THE SAME WAS LEASED FOR USE EITHER FOR COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AS APPROVED BY THE L ESSOR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS RESTRICTI ONS ON THE LESSEE / ASSESSEE PUT UP BY THE LESSOR AND IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF FREEHOLD TRANSFER OR SALE A ND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING O FFICER THUS, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT ON THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA. THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, WAS HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AT RS.13,73,696/- AND FURTHER INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS CHARGED AT RS.82, 416/-. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY CHENNAI BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN FOXCONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. VS. ITO (TDS) (SUPRA ). 6. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND REPLY F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT NO DOUBT, AFTER 99 YEARS OF LEASE, THE LEASE HOLD RIGHT EXPIRED AND THE LESSOR WAS VESTED WITH THE FULL R IGHTS ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND, WITH THE OPTION EITHER TO RENEW THE L EASE FOR FURTHER PERIOD AND TAKE BACK THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND. HOWEVER, THE PRELIMINARY CLAUSE OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT REFLECTS THAT THE PAYMENT OF L EASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT. TH E CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE PRELIMINARY CLAUSE OF THE LEASE AGREEM ENT AT PAGE 7 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH ARE NOT BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMI UM OF RS.1,37,36,963/- WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INT O THE LEASE AGREEMENT AND THE SAME WAS NOT UNDER THE LEASE DEED, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM FELL OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF DEFINITION OF RENT AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTE D OUT BY THE CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON T HE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FOXCONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P ) LTD. VS. ITO (TDS) (SUPRA) AS THE SAME WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS UPFRONT PAYMENT OF LEASE AND FURTHER THE SAID UPFRONT PAYMENT WAS PART OF THE CONDITIONS FOR ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD RIGHTS, UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE WHE RE, THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NAVI MUMBAI SEZ(P) LTD IN ITA NO.738 TO 7741/MUM/2012, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10, VIDE OR DER DATED 12.08.2013, IN ORDER TO HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT OF LE ASE PREMIUM TO PCNTDA BEING A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT, COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE PAID UNDER THE TERMS OF LEASE AGREEM ENT. FURTHER, STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN PAID ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY LEASE PREMIUM. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIR ECTED TO DELETE THE DEMAND CREATED UNDER SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF T HE ACT. 7. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY CO VERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN ITO VS. CAMP EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDE R:- 5 ITA NO.636/PN/2014 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDE R SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING VARIOUS SCHOOLS AND COLLEG ES IN THE CITY OF PUNE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IN ORDER TO ES TABLISH ANOTHER SCHOOL IN PIMPRI CHINCHWAD AREA, THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO AN ADVERTISEMENT BY PCNTDA, APPLIED FOR A PLOT ON LEASEHOLD BASIS. AS PER THE BID DOCUMENT, WHERE THE BID QUOTED BY A PARTY ACCEPTED, THE SAID PARTY WAS REQUIRED TO PAY THE QUOTED AMOUNT I.E. THE PREMIUM WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF THE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT. IN CASE SUCH PREMIUM WAS NOT PAID WITHI N PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS, 25% OF THE TENDER DEPOSIT WAS TO BE FORTIFIED AND B ALANCE AMOUNT WAS TO BE REFUNDED WITHOUT ANY INTEREST. THE TENDER DOCUMENT STATED THAT THE TENDER WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE OF RESERVED PLOTS AND A S PER THE DOCUMENT FULL PREMIUM WAS TO BE PAID TO PCNTDA AND LEASE AGREEMEN T WOULD BE ENTERED WITH THE PARTY. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PCNTDA FOR 99 YEARS AND THE LEASE RENT WAS RS.100/- PER AN NUM FOR THE PERIOD OF 99 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY, DEPOSITED THE PRE MIUM AMOUNT OF RS.2,20,24,860/-. AFTER RECEIVING THE PREMIUM AMOU NT, THE LICENSER I.E. PCNTDA AGREED TO EXECUTE LEASE DEED TO CONVEY / TRAN SFER / ASSIGN THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS. THE LEASE DEED AUTHORIZES THE AS SESSEE TO BUILD / CONSTRUCT ANY BUILDING ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR OBTAININ G THE LEASE RIGHTS AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER PAYMENT OF THE LEASE PREMIUM, THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO AND BUNDLE OF RIGHTS WERE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE DE FAULT IN RESPECT OF THE TDS PAYABLE ON SUCH LEASE RENT PAYMENT TO PCNTDA. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN FOX CONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX ON SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT ON THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA AND DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201 (1) OF THE ACT WAS RAISED AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE AC T WAS CHARGED, RAISING A DEMAND OF RS.22,90,585/-. 8. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 8 REFERRED TO THE PRELIMINA RY CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND PCNTDA AND POINTED OUT THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM FINDS MENTION IN THE LEASE DEED B UT THE SAID PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT SAME WAS NOT UNDER THE LEASE DEED AND THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM FALLS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF DEFINITI ON OF RENT AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERV ED FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF FOX CONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD . (SUPRA) WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS AS IN THAT CASE ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS UPFRONT PAYMENT AND NOT LEASE PREMIUM. FURTHER, UPFRONT PA YMENT WAS PART OF CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD RIGHTS UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE WHERE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTE RING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE SERIES OF DECISI ONS, UNDER WHICH SUCH SIMILAR PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS HELD TO BE NOT SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. 9. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF LEASE P REMIUM AROSE BEFORE THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NAV I MUMBAI SEZ (P) LTD. IN ITA NOS.738 TO 740/MUM/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 06-07 TO 2009-10, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 12.08.2013, HELD THAT LEASE PREMIUM 6 ITA NO.636/PN/2014 PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEV ELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD. (CIDCO) FOR ACQUIRING DEVELOPMENT AND LEASEHOLD RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF 60 YEARS, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SU BJECT TO DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. FURTHER ANOT HER BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. WADHWA ASSOCIATES IN I TA NO.695/MUM/2012, VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2013, HELD THAT TDS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM TO M/S. MMRD LTD. 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEREIN THE LEASE PREMIUM WAS PAID TO PCNTDA BY THE ASSESSEE AS A PRE -CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID CONSEQUENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN T HE PARTIES. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN PAID ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY THE LEASE PREMIUM, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE REVENUE. RELYING UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE MUMBAI BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THREE DIFFERENT CASES, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A ) IN HOLDING THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RAISING THE DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 8. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD TH AT WHERE THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO THE LEASE AGREEMENT, THE SAME NOT BEING PAID CONSEQUENT TO THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF RENT AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT. IN ADDITIO N, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID STAMP DUTY ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPR ESENTED BY THE LEASE PREMIUM AND THE SAID FINDING OF THE CIT(A) HAVING NO T BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE R EVENUE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDIN GLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISE D BY THE REVENUE. 7. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO TH E FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PREETAM MEDIC AL FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE (SUPRA), THEREFORE, RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE DEMAND RAISE D U/S.201(1)/201(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7 ITA NO.636/PN/2014 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14-08-2015. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; #$% DATED : 14 TH AUGUST, 2015. LRH'K '()'*+ , &* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' ' ( ( ) S / THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4. ' ' ( S / THE CIT-V, PUNE 5. 6. +,- ., ' .', IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; -0 1 / GUARD FILE. '$ - / BY ORDER , + //TRUE C + //TRUE COPY// 23 4 .5 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ' .', IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE