Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 185 - SC - Income TaxTDS u/s 194-C or under Section 194-I - Payment of charges for landing the aircrafts and parking thereof at New Delhi Airport - whether landing and take-off facilities on the one hand and parking facility on the other hand, would mean to 'use of the land'? Held that:- The charges which are taken from the aircrafts for landing and even for parking of the aircrafts are not dependent upon the use of the land. On the contrary, the protocol prescribes a detailed methodology of fixing these charges. Chapter 4 of Airport Economics Manual issued by International Civil Aviation Organization deals with 'Determine the cost basis for charging purposes'. The charges on air-traffic which includes Landing Charges, Lighting Charges, Approach and Aerodrome Control Charges, Aircraft Parking Charges, Aerobridge Charges, Hangar Charges, Passenger Service Charges, Cargo Charges etc. are to be fixed applying the formulae stated therein. A reading thereof would clearly point out the cost analysis which is to be done for fixing these charges. Thus, when the airlines pay for these charges, treating such charges as charges for 'use of land' would be adopting a totally naove 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. 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. View in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI Versus M/s SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD [2012 (8) TMI 643 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] confirmed while Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. [2008 (10) TMI 341 - DELHI HIGH COURT] rejected - Decided in favour of assessee.
|