Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs I.T.C. Limited on 4 July, 2017 cites

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Asstt. Cit vs Niit Ltd. on 31 October, 2007

In CIT v. NIIT Limited (supra) the question that arose was whether the Assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194-I of the Act in respect of the payments made to the franchisee under the head 'Infrastructural claims'. It was held on fact that the relationship between the parties was not of a lessor and lessee. The limited purpose was to run an education centre offering NIIT courses as specified in the franchisee agreement. Although the charges were broken up under two heads, viz., as marketing claim and infrastructure claim, there was no payment of 'rent' by the Assessee to the franchisee within the meaning of Section 194-I of the Act. This decision is , therefore, also not helpful to the Assessee here.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

M/S. Tril Inforpark Limited vs The Income Tax Officer (Tds) on 7 March, 2016

In TRIL Infopark Limited (supra) the payment of Rs. 1412 crores by the lessee to the lessor was determined in the competitive bidding that took place even before the joint venture partner in whose favour the lease was to be granted was incorporated. The said amount was to be paid as a lumpsum ITA 73, 75, 77 to 82, 86, 100, 113, 123, 200, 561, 633 and 688 of 2005 Page 12 of 15 to the lessor who in turn was required to make it over to the Government. It was in those circumstances that the Madras High Court held that "once it is understood to be a consideration paid to the Government, the question of deducting tax at source does not arise." The said decision is, therefore, of no of assistance to the Assessee in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document
1   2 Next