https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260514 A lump-sum lease premium paid for acquiring leasehold rights was held not to be "rent" within section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, because it was a premium for obtaining the rights and not a recurring payment for use of land. As no tax was deductible at source on that payment, the payer could not be treated as an assessee in default, and the consequential interest liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) also failed. The Tribunal followed earlier co-ordinate Bench decisions on identical facts and held the demand unsustainable. en-us Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:41:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260514 A lump-sum lease premium paid for acquiring leasehold rights was held not to be "rent" within section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, because it was a premium for obtaining the rights and not a recurring payment for use of land. As no tax was deductible at source on that payment, the payer could not be treated as an assessee in default, and the consequential interest liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) also failed. The Tribunal followed earlier co-ordinate Bench decisions on identical facts and held the demand unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260514