By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, AUG 04, 2015: ASSESSEES are foreign Airlines. One is Japan Airlines Company Limited ( 'JAL') and the other is Singapore Airlines Limited ('SAL'). Their services included inward and outbound air traffic to and from New Delhi as well. For landing  the aircrafts and parking thereof at New Delhi Airport i.e. Indira Gandhi International Airport ('IGIA'), the Airports Authority of India ('AAI') which manages IGIA levies charges on these two Airlines. For payment of landing and parking charges in respect of its aircrafts, the two Airlines were deducting TDS under Section 194-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The TDS under Section 194-C of the Act was deductible @ 2%. After deducting this TDS while making payment to AAI, the same was deposited with the Revenue. The Income Tax Authorities, however, took the view that the TDS was to be deducted under the provisions of Section 194-I of the Act which called for deduction @20%.

Having heard the parties, the SC held that,

++ Section 194-I of the Act, which was inserted by Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. June 01, 1994, provides for deduction of tax at source in  respect of payment of 'rent' by any person, other than an individual and a hindu undivided family, at the time of payment or credit, whichever is earlier. The rate at which deduction of tax is to be made at source is 20%. There have been amendments in this Section in the years 2002, 2007 and 2009 and with these amendments, the scope of this Section has been enlarged. However, as the assessment year in question is prior to 2002 and otherwise also, the later amendments have no bearing insofar as the assessees are concerned, it is not necessary to spell out the amendments made to this Section;

++ from the reading of this Section, it becomes clear that TDS is to be made on the 'rent'. The expression 'rent' is given much wider meaning under this provision than what 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 given is inconsequential. Such payment under lease, sub-lease and/or tenancy would be treated as 'rent'. In the second place, such a payment made even under any other 'agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or any building' would also be treated as 'rent'. Whether or not such  building is owned by the payee is not relevant. The expressions 'any payment', by whatever name called and 'any other agreement or arrangement' have the widest import. Likewise, payment made for the 'use of any land or any building' widens the scope of the proviso;

++ in the present case, we find that these Airlines are allowed to land and take-off their Aircrafts at IGIA for which landing fee is charged. Likewise, they are allowed to park their Aircrafts at IGIA for which parking fee is charged. It is done under an agreement and/or arrangement with AAI. The moot question is as to whether landing and take-off facilities on the one hand and parking facility on the other hand, would mean to 'use of the land';

++ the Madras High Court examined the matter keeping wider perspective in mind thereby encompassing the utilization of the airport providing the facility of landing and take-off of the airplanes and also parking facility. After taken into consideration these aspects, the Madras High Court came to the conclusion that the facility was not of 'use of land' per se but the charges on landing and take-off by the AAI from these airlines were in respect of number of facilities provided by the AAI which was to be necessarily provided in compliance with the various international protocol. The charges, therefore, were not for land usage or area allotted simpliciter. These were the charges for various services provided. The substance of these charges was ingrained in the  various facilities offered to meet the requirement of passengers' safety and on safe landing and parking of the aircraft and these were the consideration that, in reality, governed the fixation of the charges. To our mind, the aforesaid conclusion of the High Court of Madras is justified which is based on sound rationale and reasoning.

++ we are convinced that the charges which are fixed by the AAI for landing and take-off services as well as for parking of aircrafts are not for the 'use of the land'. That would be too simplistic an approach, ignoring other relevant details which would amply demonstrate that these charges are for services and facilities offered in connection with the aircraft operation at the airport. To point out at the outset, these services include providing of air traffic services, ground safety services, aeronautical communication facilities, installation and maintenance of navigational aids and meteorological services at the airport;

++ we would like to make one comment about the judgment of the Madras High Court. Madras High Court has given one more reason in support of its view that the charges paid by the Airlines to the AAI do not come within the definition of the 'rent' as defined under Section 194-I. The High Court has held that the words 'any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or any building' have to be read ejusdem generis and it should take it colour from the earlier portion of the definition namely "lease, sub-lease and tenancy". Thereby, it has tried to limit the ambit of words 'any other agreement or arrangement'. This reasoning is clearly fallacious. A bare reading of the definition of 'rent' contained in explanation to Section 194-I would make it clear that in the first place, the payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy which is to be treated as 'rent'. That is rent in traditional sense. However, second part is independent of the first part which gives much wider scope to the term 'rent'. As per this whenever payment is made for use of any land or any building by any other agreement or arrangement, that is also to be treated as 'rent'. Once such a payment is made for use of land or building under any other agreement or arrangement, such agreement or arrangement gives the definition of rent of very wide connotation. To that extent, High Court of Delhi appears to be correct that the cope of definition of rent under this definition is very wide and not limited to what is understood as rent in common parlance. It is a different matter that the High Court of Delhi did not apply this definition correctly to the present case as it failed to notice that in substance the charges paid by these airlines are not for 'use of land' but for other facilities and services wherein use of the land was only minor and insignificant aspect. Thus it did not correctly appreciate the nature of charges that are paid by the airlines for landing and parking charges which is not, in substance, for use of land but for various other facilities extended by the AAI to the airlines. Use of land, in the process, become incidental. Once it is held that these charges are not covered by Section 194-I of the Act, it is not necessary to go into the scope of Section 194-C of the Act.

(See 2015-TIOL-171-SC-IT)