The revenue have not placed any material suggesting that the assessee had any interest either as a lessee or sub-lessee or a tenant in any of the aforesaid 13 premises. The fact that the assessee was allowed use of premises by IISPL in terms of agreement dated 1-12-2008, cannot lead to the conclusion that the [...]

CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT had the benefit of examining the entire documentary evidence which consisted of the various lease deeds and the c & f agents agreements. The conclusions drawn by these authorities on the basis of such scrutiny are concurrent. Even otherwise, if the revenue was of the opinion that any consideration paid to the c & f agent comprised of some elements such as rent, such a conclusion ought to have been supported by facts.

With respect to the deduction u/s.194-I,the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the land lady being a senior citizen has submitted Form 15G to the assessee declaring that no tax should be deducted on the rent paid to her when the taxable limit for taxation in her hand was to be Rs. 1,95,000.

The learned CIT(A) has tried to give a meaning to the definition as given in the Statute u/s. 194-I vis-à-vis the agreement for wagons investment scheme as has been perused in his order. Having reproduced the agreement and the definition of rent, he has not been to correlate the same for the simple reason that rent or arrangement has to be understood from the point of view of ownership.

Given the definition of ‘lease or tenancy’ and the definition of ‘rent’ as appearing in Section 194 I Explanation, unless the payment is with reference to the use of any specified land or a building, payment made for availing of the services as in the nature landing or parking, as available in the present case before us, cannot be construed as ‘rent’.

U/s 194-I, Income Tax is required to be deducted at source at the time of payment of any income by way of rent @’ 10% for the use of any machinery or plant or equipment. U/s 194C, tax is required to be deducted @’ 2% for carrying out any work which, inter alia, includes carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than by railways. Though generally speaking all types of machinery, plant and equipment given on hire get covered u/s. 194-I but hiring of transport vehicles get specifically covered u/s. 194-C as far as Tax Deduction at source is concerned. Transport vehicles used for carriage of goods and passengers are to be subjected to TDS provisions as per clause (c) of Explanation III of sub-section (2) of section 194C of the I.T. Act.

ACIT v. Result Services (P.) Ltd. – The assessee is paying rent to the holding company as reimbursement since last many years. This position has been accepted by the department all through and it has been never disputed even when provisions for TDS were on statute since 1994. Section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was inserted in Act w.e.f. 01.06.1994. Similarly, this position was also not disputed even after the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2006.

Chattisgarh State Electricity Board Vs. ITO (TDS) – in a situation in which the payment in made for the use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, the payment could be said to be for the use of an asset. However, in a situation in which the payment is made only for the purpose a specific act, i.e. power transmission in this case, and even if an asset is used in the said process, the payment cannot be said to be for the use of an asset. When control of the asset (transmission lines in the present case) always remains with the PGCIL, any payment made to the PGCIL for transmission of power on the transmission lines and infrastructure owned controlled and in physical possession of PGCIL can be said to have been made for ‘the use of’ these transmission lines or other related infrastructure.

GRIDCO Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Cuttack)-The Tribunal observed that Circular No.5 and Circular No.736 had given restricted meaning to the word ‘rent’. However, in view of the decisions relied by the tax department, the word ‘rent’ is to be given a wider meaning. Accordingly, the contention of the taxpayer on this aspect was rejected. Since, the taxpayer supplied power through the transmission lines of OPTCL, the taxpayer merely obtained a service from OPTCL which had the infrastructure in the form of equipments and transmission lines.

SKIL Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- The nature of arrangement entered by the appellant for transportation of its employees between residence to office is similar to the arrangement mentioned in the circular No. 558, dated 28th March 1990, issued by the CBDT regarding the applicability of the provisions of section 194C of the Act to the hire charges paid to bus owners. Apartment from this, other circulars (ie., circular number 681 dated March, 8, 1994, circular No. 713 dated August 2, 1995 and circular number 715 dated August 8, 1995) have specifically provided that the provisions of section 1 94C of the Act shall apply in case where bus or any other mode of transport is chartered. Based on the reading of the circulars, I am of the opinion that payments made by the appellant are of similar nature and hence tax should be deductible under section 1 94C of the Act;