https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268568 A lump sum lease premium paid to acquire leasehold rights in land for a long term was treated as consideration for transfer of a substantive and enduring interest, not as periodic rent. Applying the distinction between premium for transfer of the right to enjoy property and rent for continuous enjoyment, the payment was held to be capital in nature. The restrictive covenants in the lease deed did not change its character into rent. Accordingly, the amount did not fall within section 194-I, no tax deduction at source was required, and liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) did not arise. en-us Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Nov 2015 23:51:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268568 A lump sum lease premium paid to acquire leasehold rights in land for a long term was treated as consideration for transfer of a substantive and enduring interest, not as periodic rent. Applying the distinction between premium for transfer of the right to enjoy property and rent for continuous enjoyment, the payment was held to be capital in nature. The restrictive covenants in the lease deed did not change its character into rent. Accordingly, the amount did not fall within section 194-I, no tax deduction at source was required, and liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) did not arise. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268568