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

The Supreme Court had to consider the conflict of judicial opinion between the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Japan Airlines Co 325 ITR 298 (Del) and that of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Singapore Airlines Ltd 358 ITR 237 (Mad) on the question whether landing/ parking charges paid by an airline company to the AAI were payments for a contract of work under Section 194-C and not in the nature of ‘rent’ as defined in Section 194-I. The Delhi High Court decided the issue in favour of the department following its earlier decision in the case of United Airlines v. CIT 287 ITR 281. It took the view that the term ‘rent’ as defined in Section 194-I had a wider meaning than ‘rent’ in the common parlance as it included any agreement or arrangement for use of land. The High Court further observed that the use of land began when the wheels of an aircraft touched the surface of the airfield and similarly, there was use of land when the aircraft was parked at the airport. However, the Madras Hih Court dissented from the view of the Delhi High Court. HELD by the Supreme Court reversing the Delhi High Court and affirming the Madras High Court:

(i) From the reading of s. 194-I, it becomes clear that TDS is to be made on the ‘rent’. The expression ‘rent’ is given much wider meaning under this provision than what is normally known in common parlance. In the first instance, it means any payment which is made under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy. Once the payment is made under lease, sub-lease or tenancy, the nomenclature which is given is inconsequential. Such payment under lease, sub-lease and/or tenancy would be treated as ‘rent’. In the second place, such a payment made even under any other ‘agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or any building’ would also be treated as ‘rent’. Whether or not such building is owned by the payee is not relevant. The expressions ‘any payment’, by whatever name called and ‘any other agreement or arrangement’ have the widest import. Likewise, payment made for the ‘use of any land or any building’ widens the scope of the proviso;

(ii) The charges which are fixed by the AAI for landing and take-off services as well as for parking of aircrafts are not for the ‘use of the land’. That would be too simplistic an approach, ignoring other relevant details which would amply demonstrate that these charges are for services and facilites offered in connection with the aircraft operation at the airport. There are various international protocols which mandate all such authorities manning and managing these airports to construct the airports of desired standards which are stipulated in the protocols. The services which are required to be provided by these authorities, like AAI, are aimed at passengers’ safety as well as on safe landing and parking of the aircrafts. Therefore, it is not mere ‘use of the land’. On the contrary, it is the facilities, that are to be compulsarily offered by the AAI in tune with the requirements of the protocol, which is the primary focus;

(iii) 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;

(iv) However, the reason given by the Madras High Court that the words ‘any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or any building’ have to be read ejusdem generic and it should take it colour from the earlier portion of the definition namely “lease, sub-lease and tenancy” and to thereby, limit the ambit of words ‘any other agreement or arrangement’ is clearly fallacious. A bare reading of the definition of ‘rent’ contained in explanation to Section 194-I would make it clear that in the first place, the payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy which is to be treated as ‘rent’. That is rent in traditional sense. However, second part is independent of the first part which gives much wider scope to the term ‘rent’. As per this whenever payment is made for use of any land or any building by any other agreement or arrangement, that is also to be treated as ‘rent’. Once such a payment is made for use of land or building under any other agreement or arrangement, such agreement or arrangement gives the definition of rent of very wide connotation. To that extent, High Court of Delhi appears to be correct that the scope of definition of rent under this definition is very wide and not limited to what is understood as rent in common parlance. It is a different matter that the High Court of Delhi did not apply this definition correctly to the present case as it failed to notice that in substance the charges paid by these airlines are not for ‘use of land’ but for other facilities and services wherein use of the land was only minor and insignificant aspect. Thus it did not correctly appreciate the nature of charges that are paid by the airlines for landing and parking charges which is not, in substance, for use of land but for various other facilities extended by the AAI to the airlines. Use of land, in the process, become incidental. Once it is held that these charges are not covered by Section 194-I of the Act, it is not necessary to go into the scope of Section 194-C of the Act.