ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Delay condoned.
2. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment of Delhi High Court dated 16.02.2017 by which the Delhi High Court has allowed the
writ petitions filed by the private respondents herein. The appeals have been filed by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority, Commissioner of Income Tax as well as Income Tax Officer and others. The facts and issues in all the appeals
being common, it shall be sufficient to refer the facts and pleadings in Civil Appeal No.  15130 of 2017 â€" Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) â€
II & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. for deciding this batch of appeals.
3. The respondent Rajesh Projects (India) is a private limited company engaged in the business of real estate activities of constructing, selling
residential units etc. On 03.11.2010, the respondentÂcompany entered into a longÂterm lease for 90 years with the Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority for Plot No. GHÂ07A for development and marketing of Group Flats. As per terms of the lease deed, the company partially
paid the consideration amount for the acquisition of the plot to Greater Noida at the time of execution of the lease deed and is also paying the balance
lease premium annually as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Notice under Section 201/201(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued
by the Income Tax department inquiring regarding nonÂdeduction of tax at source under Section 194ÂI of the Income Tax Act from the annual lease
rent paid to Greater Noida. The respondentÂcompany replied the notices. The respondents case was that it did not deduct tax at source as it was
advised by Greater Noida that it is a Government authority, hence the tax deduction at source provisions are not applicable. The Assessing Officer
passed the order dated 31.03.2014 for the Financial Year 2010Â2011 and 2011Â2012, the respondent was held as “assesseeÂinÂdefault†for
nonÂdeduction/nonÂdeposit of TDS on account of payment of lease rent and interest made to Greater Noida. Consequent demand was raised against
the respondents. Aggrieved by assessment order, the respondentÂcompany filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income TaxÂAppeals.
Respondents prayed to stay the demand which was refused and recovery proceedings were initiated. Aggrieved by assessment and recovery
proceedings emanating therefrom, the respondentÂcompany filed a Writ Petition No. 8085 of 2014 praying for various reliefs including the relief that
respondentÂcompany be not treated as “assesseeÂinÂdefault†under the Income Tax Act for nonÂdeduction/depositing the tax at source in
respect of payment of rent on lease land and in respect of other charges paid to Greater Noida. Different other entities also filed the writ petitions in
the Delhi High Court praying for more or less the same reliefs relating to lease rent payment and for payment of interest to Greater Noida. All the writ
petitions involving common questions of law and facts were heard together and were allowed by the Delhi High Court by its judgment dated
16.02.2017. Before the High Court, Greater Noida and the Noida authorities contended that they are local authorities within the meaning of Section
10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence their income is exempt from the Income Tax. It was further contended that the interest received by them
is exempt under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Income Tax Act and they are exempted from payment of any tax on the interest.
4. The revenue refuted the contention of Greater Noida and Noida contending that w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the Greater Noida and Noida is not a local
authority within the meaning of Section 10(20) and further they are also not entitled for the benefit of notification issued under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f).
It was further contended that with regard to payment of rent to the Noida and Greater Noida, the respondentÂcompany was liable to deduct the tax
on payment of interest, no incomeÂtax was deducted by the respondentÂcompany while paying rent to Noida and Greater Noida, hence they are
“assesseeÂinÂdefaultâ€. The revenue also relied on Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition Tax No. 1338 of 2005
decided on 28.02.2011 where the Allahabad High Court has held that Noida is not a local authority within the meaning of Section 10(20) as amended
by Finance Act, 2002. The Delhi High Court after hearing all the parties allowed the writ petitions. The Delhi High Court held that Noida and Greater
Noida are not local authorities within the meaning of Section 10(20) as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2003. Delhi High Court further held that interest income
of the Noida and Greater Noida is exempted under the notification dated 22.10.1970 issued under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Income Tax Act. The
High Court further held that as far as payment of rent to the Noida and Greater Noida, the respondentÂcompany was liable to deduct income tax at
source. The High Court recorded its conclusions in Para 20 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:Â
“20. In view of the above analysis, the court hereby concludes as follows:(1) Amounts paid as part of the lease premium in terms of the timeÂ‐
schedule(s) to the Lease Deeds executed between the petitioners and GNOIDA, or biÂannual or annual payments for a limited/specific period
towards acquisition of lease hold rights are not subject to TDS, being capital payments;
(2) Amounts constituting annual lease rent, expressed in terms of percentage (e.g. 1%) of the total premium for the duration of the lease, are rent, and
therefore subject to TDS. Since the petitioners could not make the deductions due to the insistence of GNOIDA, a direction is issued to the said
authority (GNOIDA) to comply with the provisions of law and make all payments, which would have been otherwise part of the deductions, for the
periods, in question, till end of the date of this judgment. All payments to be made to it, henceforth, shall be subject to TDS.
(3) Amounts which are payable towards interest on the payment of lump sum lease premium, in terms of the Lease which are covered by Section
194ÂA are covered by the exemption under Section 194A(3)(f) and therefore, not subjected to TDS.
(4) For the reason mentioned in (3) above, any payment of interest accrued in favour of GNOIDA by any petitioner who is a bank  to the GNOIDA,
towards fixed deposits, are also exempt from TDS.â€
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court, Greater Noida, Noida as well as Revenue has filed these appeals.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Noida and Greater Noida contended that Noida and Greater Noida have been constituted under Section 3 of the
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and is a local authority within the meaning of Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Reliance on notification dated 24.12.2001 issued by the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh under the proviso to Article 243Q(1) has also been
placed to contend that by virtue of said notification both Greater Noida and Noida are municipalities and are covered by the local authorities as
explained under the explanation to Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act. It is further contended that interest income of the authorities is exempted
under the notification issued under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f). Further reliance has been placed on Circular No. 35/2016 dated 13.10.2016 wherein it has
been clarified that provision of Section 194ÂI of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on lumpÂsum lease premium paid for acquisition of longÂterm lands is not
applicable.
7. It is further submitted that the question as to whether Noida/Greater Noida is local authority is engaging attention of this Court in Civil Appeal No.
792Â793 of 2014, in which judgment has already been reserved. On tax deduction at source, it is further submitted that the said issue is also pending
consideration of this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33260 of 2016, in which judgment has also been reserved. With regard to tax
deduction at source on the payment of lease rent, reliance has been placed on Circular dated 30.01.1995.
8. Learned counsel for the revenue in support of its appeal submits that Noida and Greater Noida are not covered by the definition of local authority as
contained under Section 10(20) and their income is not exempted under Section 10(20). Judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 28.02.2011 in Writ
Petition Tax No. 1338 of 2005 was also relied by the revenue against which appeal has already been filed by Noida and has been heard. With regard
to income tax deduction at source under Section 194A, the revenue has referred to its appeal in Special Leave Petition (C) No.34530 of 2016
Commissioner of Income Tax â€" TDS â€" Kanpur Vs. Central Bank of India, where the arguments has already been concluded and judgment is
reserved.
9. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that Noida/Greater Noida is not entitled for the benefit of Section 194A(3)(iii)(f).
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
11. Insofar as the appeals filed by Noida/Greater Noida are concerned, the principal submission raised by the appellant is applicability of Section
10(20) of the Income Tax Act. Learned counsel for the Noida has submitted that the said issue has already been addressed in detail in Civil Appeal
No. 792Â793 of 2014. By our judgment of the date in Civil Appeal No. 792Â793 of 2014 New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals & Ors., we have held that Noida is not a “local authority†within the meaning of Section 10(20) of the
Income Tax Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003. For the reasons given by our judgment of the date in the above appeals, this
submission has to be rejected.
12. Now coming to the appeals filed by the revenue, insofar as the question relating to exemption under Section 194A(3) (iii)(f) by virtue of notification
dated 24.10.1970, i.e. the exemption of interest income of the Noida, we have already decided the said controversy in CIVIL APPEAL
NO._________ OF 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 3168 of 2017) Â Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Kanpur and Anr. Vs. Canara Bank.
Having held that Noida is covered by the notification dated 22.10.1970, the judgment of the Delhi High Court holding that Noida/Greater Noida is
entitled for the benefit of Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) has to be approved.
13. Now coming to the direction of the High Court regarding deduction of tax at source on the payment of lease rent as per Section 194ÂI of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, the authority has relied on Circular dated 30.01.1995. Section 194ÂI of the Income Tax Act provides as follows:Â
“Section 194ÂI : Rent
2[Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident] any income by way of rent, shall, at the
time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any
other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct incomeÂtax thereon at the rate ofÂ
4[(a) two per cent. for the use of any machinery or plant or equipment; and
(b) ten per cent. for the use of any land or building (including factory building) or land appurtenant to a building (including factory building) or furniture
or fittings:]
Provided that no deduction shall be made under this section where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of
such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year by the aforesaid person to the account of, or to, the payee, does
not exceed 5[one hundred eighty thousand rupees] :
6 [Provided further that an individual or a Hindu undivided family, whose total sales, gross receipts or turnover from the business or profession carried
on by him exceed the monetary limits specified under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 44AB during the financial year immediately preceding the
financial year in which such income by way of rent is credited or paid, shall be liable to deduct incomeÂtax under this section.]
1[Provided also that no deduction shall be made under this section where the income by way of rent is credited or paid to a business trust, being a real
estate investment trust, in respect of any real estate asset, referred to in clause (23FCA) of section 10, owned directly by such business trust.]
Explanation : For the purposes of this section,Â
2[(i) “rent†means any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sublease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement for the use
of (either separately or together) any,Â
(a) land; or
(b) building (including factory building); or
(c) land appurtenant to a building (including factory building); or
(d) machinery; or
(e) plant; or
(f) equipment; or
(g) furniture; or
(h) fittings,
whether or not any or all of the above are owned by the payee;]
(ii) where any income is credited to any account, whether called “Suspense account†or by any other name, in the books of account of the person
liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section
shall apply accordingly.â€
14. The definition of rent as contained in the explanation is a very wide definition. Explanation states that “rent†means any payment, by whatever
name called, under any lease, sublease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land. The High Court has read the relevant
clauses of the lease deed and has rightly come to the conclusion that payment which is to be made as annual rent is rent within the meaning of Section
194ÂI, we do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid conclusion of the High Court. The High Court has rightly held that TDS shall be deducted on the
payment of the lease rent to the Greater Noida as per Section 194ÂI. Reliance on circular dated 30.01.1995 has been placed by the Noida/Greater
Noida. A perusal of the circular dated 30.01.1995 indicate that the query which has been answered in the above circular is “Whether requirement
of deduction of incomeÂtax at source under Section 194ÂI applies in case of payment by way of rent to Government, statutory authorities referred to
in Section 10(20A) and local authorities whose income under the head “Income from house property†or “Income from other sources†is
exempt from incomeÂtax.â€
15. In Paragraph 3 of the circular, it was stated that income of an authority constituted in India by or under any law enacted either for the purpose of
dealing with and satisfying the need for housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and
villages, is exempt from incomeÂtax under Section 10(20A). In view of the aforesaid, in Paragraph 4 of the circular, following was stated:Â
In view of the aforesaid, there is no requirement to deduct incomeÂtax at source on income by way of 'rent' if the payee is the Government. In the
case of the local authorities and the statutory authorities referred to in para 3 of this circular, there will be no requirement to deduct incomeÂtax at
source from income by way of rent if the person responsible for paying it is satisfied about their taxÂexempt status under clause(20) or (20A) of
Section 10 on the basis of a certificate to this effect given by the said authorities.â€
16. A perusal of the above circular indicate that circular was issued on the strength of Section 10(20A) and Section 10(20) as it existed at the relevant
time. Section 10(20) has been amended by Finance Act, 2002 by adding an explanation and further Section 10(20A) has been omitted w.e.f.
01.04.2003.
The very basis of the circular has been knocked out by the amendments made by Finance Act, 2002. Thus, the Circular cannot be relied by
Noida/Greater Noida to contend that there is no requirement of deduction of tax at source under Section 194ÂI. Thus, deduction at source is on
payment of rent under Section 194ÂI, which is clearly the statutory liability of the respondentÂcompany. The High Court has adjusted the equities by
recording its conclusion in Paragraph 20 and issuing a direction in Paragraph 21.
17. In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any error in the judgment of the High Court dated 16.02.2017. In result, all the appeals are
dismissed.
