{"id":12654,"date":"2016-03-07T15:42:39","date_gmt":"2016-03-07T10:12:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=12654"},"modified":"2016-03-07T16:03:04","modified_gmt":"2016-03-07T10:33:04","slug":"ito-vs-dr-vasant-j-rath-trust-itat-mumbai-entire-law-on-difference-between-premium-salamai-paid-to-acquire-a-lease-and-rent-paid-to-use-a-lease-explained-in-the-context-of-whether-a-lease-results-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ito-vs-dr-vasant-j-rath-trust-itat-mumbai-entire-law-on-difference-between-premium-salamai-paid-to-acquire-a-lease-and-rent-paid-to-use-a-lease-explained-in-the-context-of-whether-a-lease-results-in\/","title":{"rendered":"ITO vs. Dr. Vasant J Rath Trust (ITAT Mumbai)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy the property made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transferor on such terms.. The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the (lessee, the price is called the premium and the money, share, &#8211; service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent. The section, therefore, brings out the distinction between a&#8217; price paid for a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and the rent to be paid periodically to the lessor. When the interest of the lessor is parted with for a price, the price paid is premium or salami. But the periodical payments made for the continuous enjoyment of the benefits under the lease are in the nature of rent. The former is a capital income and the latter a revenue receipt. There may be, circumstances where the parties may camouflage the real nature of the transaction by using clever phraseology In some cases, the so-called premium is in fact advance rent and in others rent is deferred price. It is not the form but the substance of the transaction that matters. The nomenclature used may not be decisive or conclusive but it helps the court, having regard to the other circumstances, to ascertain the intention of the parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 &#8211; nature of income and not on capital account<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ito-vs-dr-vasant-j-rath-trust-itat-mumbai-entire-law-on-difference-between-premium-salamai-paid-to-acquire-a-lease-and-rent-paid-to-use-a-lease-explained-in-the-context-of-whether-a-lease-results-in\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal","judges-jason-p-boaz-am","judges-sandeep-gosain-jm","section-194-i","section-49","counsel-indira-anand","counsel-madhur-agrawal","court-itat-mumbai","catchwords-capital-gains","catchwords-premium","catchwords-rent","catchwords-transfer","genre-domestic-tax"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12654\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}