Kishan Swaroop, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals, arise out of consolidated, order of Tribunal dt. 29 -8 -2003, by which appeals of assessee respondent were accepted, and demand raised for the financial years 2001 -02 and 2002 -03 by assessing officer in respect of interest paid on TDR/STDR and rent paid, were set aside.
(2.) SINCE the questions involved in these appeals are same and they pertain to the very same assessee but for different financial years, these appeals are being decided by this common order. Survey was conducted at the business premises of assessee respondent on 5 -3 -2002, and it was noticed that TDS was not deducted on interest paid on TDR/STDR and TDS was not deducted on rent paid for the office building to four co -owners for the years 2000 -01 and 2001 -02, and thus levied tax and interest. On appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 4 -4 -2003, partly accepted the appeals but confirmed the order of assessing authority pertaining to the liability to deduct tax on TDR/STDR and rent. Learned Tribunal, by the impugned order, accepted appeals of assessee and set aside the demand raised by assessing officer on account of aforesaid liability.
(3.) APPEALS were admitted on 9 -1 -2006, and following substantial questions were framed: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the interest paid by the bank to the NRIs on deposits in Indian currency was exempt under Section 10(15)(iv)(fa) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby not subject to TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in holding with regard to TDS under Section 194 -I of the Act that when there are a number of owners of a property, the limit or ceiling will apply to each and every owner separately notwithstanding the fact that the amount has been paid by creating (sic. -crediting) the aggregate sum in the joint account of the owners.;