TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the arrangements between the licensor and the assessee, and between the assessee and the occupants, created a lease or only a licence and sub-licence; (ii) whether the deposits received for allotment of space were trading receipts taxable as income; (iii) whether interest under section 217 was leviable.
Issue (i): Whether the arrangements between the licensor and the assessee, and between the assessee and the occupants, created a lease or only a licence and sub-licence
Analysis: The governing test was the substance of the agreement, the intention of the parties, and whether any interest in the property was created. Clauses reserving vesting, control, revocation rights, and the absence of any transfer of interest showed that the licensor retained dominion over the property. The same contractual framework bound the occupants, and their agreements did not confer tenancy or sub-tenancy rights.
Conclusion: The arrangements created only a licence and sub-licences, not a lease or sub-lease.
Issue (ii): Whether the deposits received for allotment of space were trading receipts taxable as income
Analysis: Although the allotment of space formed part of the assessee's business activity, the disputed sums were described as refundable deposits and were returnable on termination or determination of the agreements. A refundable amount kept as security and not as consideration for transfer of an interest does not become income merely because it is interest-free or retained during the subsistence of the arrangement. The character of the receipt depended on the contractual obligation to refund, which created an existing debt rather than a sale or business consideration.
Conclusion: The deposits were not trading receipts and were not taxable as income.
Issue (iii): Whether interest under section 217 was leviable
Analysis: On the facts, the assessee had no advance-tax liability because the last assessed or returned income basis did not yield any payable advance tax. In the absence of such liability, the statutory basis for charging interest under section 217 was not satisfied.
Conclusion: Interest under section 217 was not leviable.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the principal tax addition and on the interest levy, and the assessment was reduced accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: A refundable amount received under a business arrangement remains a debt and not income where the agreement does not transfer any interest in property and the obligation to refund is real; taxability depends on the true nature of the transaction, not its nomenclature.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
