Search Results For: 194-I


New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)(S. 194-I)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 2, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-I TDS: Amounts paid as part of the lease premium or biannual or annual payments for a limited/specific period towards acquisition of lease hold rights are not subject to TDS, being capital payments. 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 subject to TDS

(1) Amounts paid as part of the lease premium in terms of the time schedule (s) to the Lease Deeds executed between the petitioners and GNOIDA, or biannual 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

Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 16, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-I: S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act distinguishes between 'premium' for acquiring the lease and 'rent' for enjoying user of the property. Payment towards 'premium' for the lease (even if paid annually) is a capital payment and is not subject to s. 194-I TDS. CBDT Circular No. 35/2016 dated 13.10.2016 referred

That brings the court to the next question, which is as to the nature of the payments made towards lease. Do they constitute rent so as to attract Section 194-I? The court is of opinion that clearly these payments are not “rent”. That they are annual payments cannot be doubted. Yet, part of the payment is clearly capital in nature. Clause 1 of the lease deeds entered into in each of the cases, clearly points to the fact that a small percentage of the agreed amounts were paid as part of the lease premium and were towards acquisition of the asset; they fell, consequently in the capital stream and were not “rents”. The balance of such premium payments were spread over a period of 8 to 10 years, in specified annual or bi-annual installments. Here, distinction between a single payment made at the time of the settlement of the demised property and recurring payments made during the period of its enjoyment by the lessee is to be made. This distinction is clearly recognized in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, which defines both premium and rent. Such payments were held to constitute capital and not “rent” or advance rent,

ITO vs. Dr. Vasant J Rath Trust (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law on difference between premium (salami) paid to acquire a lease and rent paid to use a lease explained in the context of whether a lease results in a transfer u.s 2(47)

By its nature the salami being a non-recurring payment -made by a tenant to the landlord at the inception of the grant of the lease has a/ways been regarded as a receipt of a capital nature in the hands of the landlord. The finding that had been recorded by the Tribunal was that this payment was made to the assessee by the tenants for getting them accepted as tenants. In other words, it was by way of a premium or salami that these payments were received by the assessee as a consideration for granting monthly tenancies to the tenants. Obviously, it was a non-recurring payment made by the tenants to the assessee for the purpose of getting the monthly tenancy. Every payment by way of a salami or a premium need not necessarily be held to be of a capital nature or on capital account, but since prima facie that is the nature of such payment it is for the department to establish facts which would go to show that such payment was in the – nature of income and not on capital account

Japan Airlines Co. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 6, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-I: In deciding whether a payment is for "use of land", the substance of the transaction has to be seen. If the payment is for a variety of services and the use of land is minor, the payment cannot be treated as "rent"

When the airlines pay for these charges, treating such charges as charges for ‘use of land’ would be adopting a totally naïve and simplistic approach which is far away from the reality. We have to keep in mind the substance behind such charges. When matter is looked into from this angle, keeping in view the full and larger picture in mind, it becomes very clear that the charges are not for use of land per se and, therefore, it cannot be treated as ‘rent’ within the meaning of Section 194-I of the Act

ITO vs. Earnest Towers (P) Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-I applies only to amounts paid for “use” of the land and not for amounts paid to “acquire” the rights. Distinction between “lease premium” and “rent” explained

The purport of section 194 I of the Act is not to bring in its purview payments of any or every kind. Only those payments which are in the nature of “use” of land come within the ambit of section 194 I of the Act. The word “use” is therefore of prime importance for transactions where the consideration paid for the property would be termed as “rent”. The term “use “according to us has to be interpreted keeping in mind the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. The same cannot be extended to bring within its purview exploitation of any kind with reference to the property by changing its identity for its own benefit and thereafter selling it for profit

CIT (TDS) vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 8, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-I/ 194-J: Meaning of expression "rent" and "fees for technical services" explained in the context of transmission & wheeling charges paid by electricity company

The expression rent would also entail an element of possession. In each of the instances contemplated by the explanation to Section 194-I, we see in them an element of possession, be it land, building (including factory building), land appertaining to a building, plant, equipment, furniture or fittings. The person using it has some degree of possessory control, at least momentarily, although it cannot entrust the user title to the subject matter of the charge. Even the mere right to “use” is vested with an element of possessory control over the subject matter

ACIT vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: December 3, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 8, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-I: Lease premium and additional Floor Space Index (FSI) charges paid to MMRDA is not "rent" for TDS

It is the real nature of the arrangement or transaction, and not merely the words or phrases employed, even as cautioned by the apex court in Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. (supra), i.e., the substance of the transaction, that is relevant

ACIT vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 29, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-I: Payment for use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, could be said to be for the use of an asset. However, payment for a specific act such as power transmission and even if an asset is used in the said process, cannot be said to be for the use of an asset

(i) It is thus clear that in a situation in which the payment in made for the use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, the payment could be said to be

Top