TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the landing and parking charges can be deemed to be rent under section 194-I, Explanation (i) of the Income-tax Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landing and parking charges cannot be treated as rent within the aforesaid provision. Explanation (i) to section 194-I of the Income-tax Act reads as follows: "(i) 'rent' means any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or any building (including factory building), together with furniture, fittings and the land appurtenant thereto, whether or not such building is owned by the payee;" A perusal of the above provision shows that the word "rent" as defined above has a wider meanin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The principle of strict interpretation of taxing statutes was best enunciated by Rowlatt J. in his classic statement: "In a taxing statute one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used, (vide Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64 [cited with approval in ITO v. T. S. Devinatha Nadar [1968] 68 ITR 252 (SC) ; AIR 1968 SC 623.])" In A. V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala [1957] 8 STC 561 (SC) ; AIR 1957 SC 657, the Supreme Court of India stated the principle as follows: "If the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he hardship may appear to the judicial mind. On the other hand, if the court seeking to recover the tax cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be". Thus, in interpreting a taxing statute one cannot go by the notion as to what is just and expedient, vide CIT v. Shahzada Nand and Sons [1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC); AIR 1966 SC 1342. In IRC v. Hinchy [1961] 42 ITR 800 (HL) ; [1960] AC 748 (HL), the House of Lords held that a provision in the Income-tax Act 1952 for a statutory penalty (for making an incorrect return of income) of £20 and trebling "the tax which he ought to be charged under this Act" referred not to the tax on the ....