9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid in consideration for the use of any land or building, etc., under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy, etc. In other words, there should be a live link between payment of compensation known as rent and the use of land or building and this live link is by the lease, sub-lease, tenancy, etc. This live link is absent in the case before us. We are, therefore, unable to say that the charges, which were paid by the assessee, were paid in consideration of mere use of any land or building. It was paid for commercial exploitation of display rights. Thus, the order of ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. All the three appeals filed by the revenue are, therefore, dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of hoarding site charges @ 1% treating the same to be falling under section 194C, the assessee had committed default of making short TDS as the payment made by assessee fell within the purport of section 194-I, which provided for a higher rate of TDS. he has contended that the Assessing Officer, accordingly, rightly treated the assessee in default under section 201 and, in turn, rightly levied the interest under section 201(1A). He has contended that the assessee's case is that the assessee has right to display on hoarding site and the assessee has no property right. He has contended that the assessee took the right of display on hoarding site from the owners of hoarding sites. He has contended that the payment made by assessee to the owners/holders of the hoarding/hoarding sites for taking the hoarding sites for advertisement from them is in the nature of rent/hire liable to the making of TDS under section 194-I. He has also referred to CBDT's Circular No. 715, dated 8-8-1995 and contended that the same is explanatory. He has also contended that the person who takes hoarding on rent from BMC is practically owner of that hoarding for a year or so. He has thus supported the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will depend on the provisions of law relating thereto and not on the view, which may have been expressed in the said Circular. As already stated above in view of the clear provisions of the Act, section 194C clearly applies in the present case and further as stated above the provisions of section 194-I are clearly inapplicable in the present case." 5.4 "Without prejudice to the above it is the appellant's contention that all the payees in the present case have already considered/included the amounts received by them from the appellant in their respective Income-tax returns and have paid dues taxes thereon and hence tax cannot again be recovered from the appellant under section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this regard the appellant places reliance on the following decisions : * CIT v. Manager, Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Development Bank Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 230 (MP) * CIT v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 818 (MP) * Gwalior Rayon Silk Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 832 (MP) * CIT v. Shri Synthetics Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 634 (MP) * CIT v. Kannan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 477 (Ker.) * CIT v. Life Insu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the display right is taken by assessee for some period. She has contended that the assessee is not taking the space on hire/rent but is only taking the right of displaying advertisement, which falls under section 194C and not under section 194-I. She has supported the impugned order of ld. CIT(A). She has also contended that the payments made by assessee to the parties are assessed as business income in the hands of those parties. 7. In rejoinder, the ld. DR has contended that the assessee is not directly displaying but is subletting the right of display. He has contended that the earlier person will fall within the purview of section 194-I and it is the last person who is actually displaying who will fall within the purview of section 194C. He has contended that the term 'sublet' arises from letting out. 8. We have considered the rival contentions, relevant material on record as also the cited decision. In Gulf Oil India Ltd. v. ITO [2000] 75 ITD 172 (Mum.), it was held that section194-I is inapplicable when plant is taken on hire and hire charges are paid. It was also held that the storage tanks taken on hire for storing base oil did not qualify either as land or as building wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sites belonging to others. It is, therefore, clear that what is being used by the assessee in the case before us is only the right of displaying the advertisement. In other words, the use of hoarding site is to facilitate display of advertisement. The amount is paid for commercial exploitation of display rights and not for using hoarding sites under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy, etc. In our view, section 194-I is more appropriately applicable to a case where rent is paid in consideration for the use of any land or building, etc., under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy, etc. In other words, there should be a live link between payment of compensation known as rent and the use of land or building and this live link is by the lease, sub-lease, tenancy, etc. This live link is absent in the case before us. We are, therefore, unable to say that the charges, which were paid by the assessee, were paid in consideration of mere use of any land or building. It was paid for commercial exploitation of display rights. In this view of the matter, the order of ld. CIT(A) is confirmed.
11. All the three appeals filed by the revenue are, therefore, dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
