Japan Airlines Co. Limited v. CIT

377 ITR 372Supreme Court of India2015#5116 most cited

What is Japan Airlines Co. Limited v. CIT authority for?

Payments for services are not rent and thus do not attract TDS under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, unless the payment is specifically for the use of an asset in the nature of land, building, machinery etc. Section 194C applies to such service payments.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Japan Airlines Co. Limited v. CIT · 377 ITR 372 · Section 194C · Section 194I · TDS on services · rent · air travel services · landing charges · parking charges

Also reported as

60 Taxmann.com 71

Sections most often in play

Section 194-ISection 194CSection 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 194iinterest under section 201(1a)disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 271cdemergersection 234dsection 194csection 201(1a)section 201(1)section 2(24)(x)section 194assessee in default

Judgments citing Japan Airlines Co. Limited v. CIT

DCIT TDS 1(1), Mumbai vs. Emirates, Mumbai

ITA 4982/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4982 ,4983 & 4984/Mum/2013, अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष" Dcit (Osd) Tds-1(2), Room No.812, M/S. Emirates, Mittal Chambers, 228, K.G. Mittal, Hospital Bldg. Nariman Point, Ground Floor Vs. Charni Road Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaace 1237 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप/C.O/215 -217/Mum/2014, ""या"ेप ""या"ेप ""या"ेप Arising Out Of Ita/4982-83,4984/Mum/2013 Ay.2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Emirates, Nariman Point Vs. Dcit (Osd) Tds-1(2), Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. (Cross Objector) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Ms. Anusha SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT -DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 197Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

…iring of that premises, that it was deducting tax as per the provisions of section 194-I of the Act for the said premises.In our opinion PSF/X-Ray charges cannot be treated as rent as envisaged by section 194 I. In the case of Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. & others(377 ITR 372)the Hon’bel Apex Court has defined the word Rent as under: “The expression “rent” is given a much wider meaning u/s. 194-I than is normally known in common parlance. In the first instance, it means any payment which is made under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy. Once the payment is made under lease, sub-lease or tenancy, the nomenclature which is g…

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

ITA/194/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271

…ction 194-I of the Act was reversed by the Supreme Court in Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. v. CIT ITA 194/2004 Page 14 of 17 (2015) 377 ITR 372 (SC). He further submitted that in the present case POC had paid the full tax on the monies received by it from the Appellant towards warehouse charges and therefore there was no loss of the Revenue whatsoever. The Appellant did not gain anything by not deducting TDS under Section 194-I of the Act. No part of the amount payable either to the…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Singh Enterprises

ITA/80/2006HC Delhi06 Jul 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

Section 194Section 201Section 260ASection 271C

…of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 8 SCC 463. 15. In reply, Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee referred to the decision in Japan Airlines Co. Limited v. CIT (2013) 377 ITR 372 (SC) to draw a distinction between the payment of royalty which was for the right to operate the executive lounge, and which amount was quoted by the Assessee itself, and the amount paid to use the space where lounge was operated which alone could be characterized ‘rent’. It was submitted that the intention of the parties had to be gathered…