Skip to main content

No TDS u/s 194I on Payment for Acquisition of Leasehold Rights over Immovable Property

In M/s.Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle II,  the issue before the Madras High Court involved before the learned Tribunal was whether one time lump sum paid by the Assessee for getting 99 years lease of land from the Government Undertaking viz., SIPCOT was a payment in the nature of rental and therefore, the Assessee was required to deduct tax at sources under Section 194 I of the Act and having failed to do so, the said payment was liable to be added back to the declared income of the Assessee?

The learned Tribunal followed the earlier view of its own in the case of M/s.TRIL Infopark Ltd., (ITA No.699/Mds/2014, Order dated 19.06.2015) and Foxconn India Developers (P) Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 2012(53) SOT 0213.

The High Court agreeing with the Coordinate Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Foxconn India Developer (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, TDS Ward- II (3), Chennai, [2016] 68 taxmann.com 95 (Madras) held that such lump sum payment made by the Assessee for getting a long term lease does not amount to payment of rent and the same is not adjustable against the annual rent payable by the Assessee and therefore, the provisions of Section 194I of the Act will not apply to such circumstances. The said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has since been accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which has issued CIRCULAR NO.35/2016 [F.NO.275/29/2015-IT (B)], DATED 13-10-2016, holding that the Assessee is not entitled to deduct any tax at sources in such circumstances.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more