COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. ASIANA AIRLINES
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that landing and parking charges are deemed to be 'rent' under Section 194-I, not covered by Section 194-C. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee deducted tax at source at 2% on landing and parking charges paid to the Airport Authority of India, considering it under Section 194-C. The Assessing Officer disagreed, deeming it under Section 194-I. The CIT(A) held it under Section 194-J.
What were the issues?
Whether landing and parking charges paid to the Airport Authority of India are covered under Section 194-C or Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- United Airlines v. CIT & ors.8 citing287 ITR 281 · 2006 · HC
ITA No.101/2007
Page 1 of 4 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : 14.08.2008
ITA No.101/2007
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX DELHI -XVII
..... Appellant
versus
ASIANA AIRLINES ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant
: Mr R.D.Jolly with Mr Paras Chaudhary For the Respondent
: Mr Salil Aggarwal with Mr Prakash Kumar
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1.
This appeal by the revenue has been filed against the order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 65/Del/02 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02.
ITA No.101/2007
Page 2 of 4 2.
The sole question for our consideration is :- Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the payment for landing charges and parking charges made by the assessee to the Airport Authority of India would be covered within the meaning of Section 194-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
The assessee had deducted tax at source under the provisions of Section 194-C of the said Act at the rate of 2% on such payments. The Assessing Officer, however, held that the present case fell within the purview of Section 194-I of the said Act and that the deduction of tax at source should have been at the rate of 20%. The Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals) took an entirely different view and arrived at the conclusion that neither the provisions of section 194-C nor those of section 194-I of the said Act were applicable but that the tax was deductable under section 194-J of the said Act. The Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals) also directed the Assessing Officer to verify as to whether Airport Authority of India had paid the taxes. 4.
The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has relied upon its decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Japan Airlines wherein it had been held that the payments of the nature involved in the present case fell
ITA No.101/2007
Page 3 of 4 under section 194-C of the said Act. Consequently, following its decision in the case of Japan Airlines (supra), the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was right in deducting tax at source at 2% as per section 194-C of the said Act. The Tribunal also held, as a consequence, that no interest under Section 201 (1A) of the said Act could be charged in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of decision with regard to the deductibility of tax at source under section 194-C of the said Act. 5.
Mr Jolly, who appears on behalf of the appellant, submits that the decision of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the question is liable to be decided in favour of the Revenue inasmuch as the very issue of whether landing and parking charges could be deemed to be rent under Section 194-I of the said Act had come up for consideration before this Court in the case of United Airlines v. CIT : 287 ITR 281 when this Court had concluded that payments made for landing and parking charges would be deemed to be ‘rent’ under Section 194-I of the said Act. 6.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the decision in the case of United Airlines (supra). The issue is entirely covered by the decision of this Court in United
ITA No.101/2007
Page 4 of 4 Airlines (supra) wherein the Court has categorically held payments made for landing and parking charges to be deemed to be ‘rent’ under Section 194-I of the said Act. Our answer to the question formulated in this appeal is that the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the payment for landing charges and parking charges made by the assessee to the Airport Authority of India would be covered within the meaning of section 194-C of the said Act. On the contrary, such payments would be deemed to be ‘rent’ under section 194-I of the said Act. 7.
The appeal, therefore, succeeds. We make it clear that any consequential benefits that the assessee would be entitled to would be granted by the department in case the assessee is able to demonstrate that the Airport Authority of India has paid the taxes. The department shall also calculate interest under Section 201 (1A) of the said Act in accordance with the relevant provisions and as a consequence of this order.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
August 14, 2008/sb
More judgments on Section 194-C
- Dinakar Jayaraman, Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-8(1), ChennaiITA 1065/CHNY/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2026AY 2016-17
- Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-1, Delhi vs Liberty Retail Revolutions LtdITA/170/202522 May 2025
- Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-1, Delhi vs Liberty Retail Revolutions LtdITA - 170 / 202522 May 2025
- M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt. Ltd, Rourkela vs DCIT, Rourkela Circle, RourkelaITA 15/CTK/2024[2009-10]Status: Heard9 Jul 2024AY 2009-10
- M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt. Ltd, Rourkela vs DCIT, Rourkela Circle, RourkelaITA 14/CTK/2024[2008-09]Status: Heard9 Jul 2024AY 2008-09
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026