Itxa/1541/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds v. M/S.trent Ltd (Santnam Realtors Pvt Ltd)
High Court
17 Feb 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1541/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds v. M/S.trent Ltd (Santnam Realtors Pvt Ltd)
Date of order
17 Feb 2017
Assessment year(s)
2009-10
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/1541/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds v. M/S.trent Ltd (Santnam Realtors Pvt Ltd), the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1541 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS.. Appellant v/s.
M/s. Trent Ltd.
.. Respondent
Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w Mr. N.A. Kazi for the appellant Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.J.
P.C.
DATED : 17[th] FEBRUARY, 2017.
1.This appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10.
2.The grievance of the Revenue in this appeal before us is with regard to non-deduction of tax under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on lump sum premium paid for acquisition of long term lease.
3.Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue invites our attention to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No.35 of 2016 dated 13[th] October, 2016. In the above Circular, the CBDT has taken a view that the lump sum lease premium or one time
upfront lease charges paid by the assessee to acquiring long term lease hold rights in land / property will not covered by Section 194-I of the Act. Thus, no tax deduction at source on such lump sum lease premium under Section 194-I of the Act is to be made. In view of the above Circular issued by the CBDT, Mr. Malhotra, on instructions, seeks to withdraw the appeal.
4.The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Refund of Court fees as per Rules.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
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.