https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188489 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the disallowance of Rs. 15 lakhs under section 40(a)(ia) for the Assessment Year 2005-06. It held that the payment made by the company for maintenance of a public garden did not fall under section 194I as it was for publicity and commercial expediency, not rent. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of possessory control by the company over the garden, distinguishing it from a rental agreement. Consequently, the disallowance was deleted, and the Assessing Officer was directed to remove the addition. en-us Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2016 10:35:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188489 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the disallowance of Rs. 15 lakhs under section 40(a)(ia) for the Assessment Year 2005-06. It held that the payment made by the company for maintenance of a public garden did not fall under section 194I as it was for publicity and commercial expediency, not rent. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of possessory control by the company over the garden, distinguishing it from a rental agreement. Consequently, the disallowance was deleted, and the Assessing Officer was directed to remove the addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188489