Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 548 - AT - Income TaxExigibility to deduction of tax at source u/s 194I of the Act – Validity of demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act – Held that:- 'Rent', though a term of wide import, so that any payment, howsoever described, under any arrangement for seeking or securing enjoyment or possession of inter alia immovable property for any lawful purpose, would fall to be considered as rent - The term being specifically defined under a provision of the Act, recourse to its general meaning or to section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, is not apposite – Relying upon CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957 (5) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court] -The limit to the scope of the said word, however, is implicit therein, and would not include transfer of a capital asset, i.e., where so, in terms of the defining provision of section 2(14). The assessment order states the annual rent at Rs.60,000 - Though there was no evidence to support the same on record, even so, the same would not, operate to disturb the finding of the same as representing only a nominal rent in view of the substantial rights/interest having been transferred - the arrangement is subject to the assessee-licensee constructing a building complying with the relevant and applicable guidelines within the prescribed time period (of four years), also providing infrastructure facilities as well as parking facilities qua the proposed residential complex - the premium amount has been worked out with reference to the ready reckoner rates for stamp duty purposes, besides being also accounted for as sales by the lessor (CIDCO) - though described as a licensee in the arrangement, the assessee is a lessee, and the arrangement, notwithstanding the restrictive convenants, confers substantial rights in the land, enabling the assessee to, as a developer, transfer the residential units to be constructed thereon to others – the payment represents the transfer price of the land on lease hold basis, so that no part thereof qualifies to be a 'rent' within the meaning of the term u/s.194-I of the Act so as to be exigible for deduction of tax at source there-under – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue.
|