Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1467/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itxa/1467/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds v. Bkc Properties Pvt.ltd

High Court 09 Jan 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1467/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds v. Bkc Properties Pvt.ltd
Date of order
09 Jan 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/1467/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds v. Bkc Properties Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 2.The issue raised in all the three appeals is with regard to whether the tax has to be deducted at source under Section 194(I) of the Act on lump-some lease premium / one time upfront lease charges paid for acquisition of leasehold rights over property.

Decision: 4.In the above view, the appeals are not pressed 5.Therefore, all the these appeals are dismissed as not pressed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1279 OF 2014WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1467 OF 2014WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1580 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS) .. Appellant v/s. M/s. BKC Properties Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Vipul Bajpayee for the appellant Ms. Samidha Vedpathak i/b Maneksha & Sethna for the respondent P.C. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J. DATED : 9[th] JANUARY, 2017. 1.These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arise from the common order dated 24[th] December, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The common impugned order relates to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2.The issue raised in all the three appeals is with regard to whether the tax has to be deducted at source under Section 194(I) of the Act on lump-some lease premium / one time upfront lease charges paid for acquisition of leasehold rights over property. 3.Mr. Bajpayee, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Revenue states that in view of Circular No.35 of 2016 dated 30[th ]October, 2016 on the above issue, he has been instructed not to press these appeals. 4.In the above view, the appeals are not pressed 5.Therefore, all the these appeals are dismissed as not pressed. No order as to costs. Refund as per Rules. (A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan