https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243282 A lump-sum lease premium paid for acquiring leasehold rights was held not to be "rent" under section 194-I because it was consideration for securing the lease itself, not a periodic payment for use of land. As the payment fell outside the ambit of rent, no tax deduction at source was required, and the consequential deeming provisions under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could not be applied. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on identical facts and upheld cancellation of the TDS demand. en-us Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243282 A lump-sum lease premium paid for acquiring leasehold rights was held not to be "rent" under section 194-I because it was consideration for securing the lease itself, not a periodic payment for use of land. As the payment fell outside the ambit of rent, no tax deduction at source was required, and the consequential deeming provisions under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could not be applied. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on identical facts and upheld cancellation of the TDS demand. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243282