2011 (5) TMI 308 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee in default - TDS u/s 194-I - payment made as as administrative charges for granting permission for shooting a film on roads of Kharghar Node for six days - Held that - There can be no doubt that the payment is for the use of the land. It is therefore rent within the meaning of the section and the assessee ought to have deducted tax accordingly. - Assessee is liable to deduct TDS. Payment made to Air India for shooting at its cabin crew training mock-up - Held that - these payment does not appear to fall within the meaning of rent in section 194-I of the Act - assessee is not interested in the use of the land or the building in which the cabin crew training mock-up facility is located; it is more interested in capturing the facility as such in its film - assessee was not liable to deduct tax under section 194-I from the payment of Rs. 7, 12, 500 made to Air India - Appeal is partly allowed

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of tax liability under section 201(1) and section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 based on payments made by a private limited company engaged in film production to CIDCO Ltd. and Air India.

Analysis:
The appellant, a film production company, made payments to CIDCO Ltd. and Air India for the shooting of a film "Zameen" without deducting tax under section 194-I of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the payments constituted "rent" and were subject to tax deduction. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, considering CIDCO/Air India as undertakings, not Govt. bodies. The appellant argued that the payments were not "rent" as per the Act's definition, emphasizing the nature of the payments and the absence of specific use of land/building. The appellant also claimed a bona fide belief regarding CIDCO's tax exemption under section 10(20A) of the Act.

The Tribunal analyzed the payments in detail. Regarding the payment to CIDCO, it found that the payment for location use satisfied the definition of "rent" under section 194-I, despite being termed "administrative charges." The Tribunal emphasized that the actual use of land for filming constituted "rent," dismissing the appellant's arguments. For the payment to Air India, the Tribunal distinguished between the payment for a training mock-up facility and a building/land use. It concluded that the payment for the training mock-up did not fall under the definition of "rent" as it was primarily for facility usage, not land/building use. Therefore, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2004-05.

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the assessment year 2003-04, upholding the tax liability on the payment to CIDCO. However, it partly allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2004-05, ruling that the payment to Air India for the training mock-up facility did not constitute "rent" under section 194-I, thus exempting the appellant from tax deduction on that specific payment.