https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13407 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the payment labeled as a security deposit in the lease agreement constituted "rent" under section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court concluded that the amount, although termed as a security deposit, functioned as advance rent due to its adjustment against rent payable and its non-refundable nature. Consequently, tax deduction at source was required. The court found that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in its interpretation, and the substantial question of law was answered against the assessee. en-us Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13407 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the payment labeled as a security deposit in the lease agreement constituted "rent" under section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court concluded that the amount, although termed as a security deposit, functioned as advance rent due to its adjustment against rent payable and its non-refundable nature. Consequently, tax deduction at source was required. The court found that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in its interpretation, and the substantial question of law was answered against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13407