M/S Japan Airlines Co.Ltd vs Commr.Of Income Tax,New Delhi on 4 August, 2015
20. The upshot of the above observation is that in each case the
agreement in question has to be examined to ascertain if the payment is
predominantly for the use of space. In the present case, the Assessee is
permitted to operate an executive lounge. The question of being able to
operate the lounge without the actual use of the space simply does not
arise. The payment for the use of space is inseparable from the payment
of royalty for the right to operate the lounge. Therefore, even applying
the ratio of Japan Airlines Co. Limited v. CIT (supra) the only
conclusion that can be drawn is that the payment of the sum by the
Assessee to the AAI under the LA falls within the expanded definition
of 'rent' under Section 194-I of the Act. The certificate issued by the
AAI stating that the payment of licence fee for the space is different
from the payment of royalty will not make a difference to the legal
position as regards Section 194 I of the Act.