TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding that the PSF paid by the asssessee to the airport operators was not covered under the definition of rent given in the Explanation (i) to Section 194-I. Appeal admitted on second question: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding the order of the CIT(A) and holding that the amount retained by a bank/credit card agency out of the sale consideration of the tickets booked through credit cards is not covered under the definition of “commission or brokerage” given in the Explanation (i) to Section 194H of the Act and the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194H in respect of this amount?” - Income Tax Appeal No. 1181 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.(i): (a) The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of transportation by aircraft and for that purpose use and occupy airports run by Airport Operators. In the course of its business the respondent-assessee collects on behalf of the Airport Operators, a Passenger Service Fees (PSF) and hands it over to the Airport Operators. However, as no tax was deducted at source while handing over the PSF to the Airport Operator, a notice under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was issued seeking the respondent-asessee's explanation. The basis of the notice was that the PSF paid over to the Airport Operator was Rent falling within the scope under Section 194-I of the Act. It was contended by the respondent that the PSF is collected b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory liability. Besides the impugned order further holds that the Airport Operator is entitled under the above Rule to collect PSF from the passengers and the collection of PSF by the respondent-assessee is handed over to the Airport Operator. Thus the collection by the respondent-assessee is on behalf of the Airport Operator. It further records that the payment which is made by the passenger to the Airport Operator through the Airline cannot be considered as rent as no area is demarcated or earmarked for the use of the individual passenger. In support, reliance was placed by the impugned order upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Singapore Airlines Ltd. (2012) 252 CTR (Mad) 429 wherein it has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviding the security services. (f) Thereafter attention was invited to an order dated 9th May, 2006 of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Government of India) which entitle the Airport Operator to collect the PSF from the embarking passengers and out of ₹ 200/collected per passenger, an amount of ₹ 70/would be retained by the Airport Operator towards passenger facilitation while the balance ₹ 130/would be handed over to CISF for security arrangements. Thus this cannot be considered to be as a payment made by the Airlinerespondent. It is payment made by the passenger which is only routed through the airline. For this reason the order also records the fact that the above amount handed over to the Airport Operator is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and mere incidental/minor/insignificant use of the same while providing other facilities and services would not make it a payment made for use of land/buildings. This is more so as the submission of the Revenue itself before us is that the payment of PSF is for use of secured building and furniture. Therefore the use of land/or building in this case is only incidental. Thus the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Singapore Airlines (supra) would apply on all fours to the present facts. (g) As the substance of the PSF is not for use of land or building but for providing security services and facilities to the embarking passengers the decision of the Apex Court in Singapore Airlines (supra) would cover the issue in favour of the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
