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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more