| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 2440 2009 SLD 2440 (2009) 311 ITR 31 |
Madras High Court
TAX CASE Nos. 387 AND 388 OF 2004 AUGUST 16, 2007
K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
TAX CASE Nos. 387 AND 388 OF 2004 AUGUST 16, 2007
K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Income Tax Officer
v.
K.M. Pachiappan
Law:
Section:
Section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at Source - Rent Where rent paid by assessee-tenant to co-owners of premises had been duly disclosed in their individual returns and assessed as such and it was not established that rent was paid to conglomeration and thereafter distributed among co-owners it was obvious that provisions of section 194-I(a ) would be attracted and not provisions of sections 194-I(b) [Assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05] [In favour of assessee] ITO v. K.M. Pachiappan [2009] 311 ITR 31 (Mad.) The assessee had taken on rent the premises at different places and in each case there were two landlords. The rental income received by the co-owners had been duly disclosed in their individual returns for the last several assessment years which had been accepted as such. It was not disputed that the individual investment for the respective properties were duly reflected in the hands of the individual/co-owners. The rental income from these properties had never been assessed in the hands of the 'AOP'. The contention of the revenue was that the assessee was covered by section 194-I(b) for the purposes of deduction of tax at source on the premise that the rent was not paid to an individual. The Tribunal, however, held that the case was covered by section 194-I(a) and not section 194-I(b). Held that it had been found as a fact that the tenancy in the present case was common, i.e.,congregation of four persons. There was no material placed on record by the revenue to show that the rent was paid to conglomeration and thereafter it was distributed among the co-owners. It was in these circumstances that the Tribunal held that the case was covered under section 194-I(a) and not by the provisions of section 194-I(b). It was obvious that the provisions of section 194-I(a) would be attracted and not the provisions of section 194-I(b). T. Ravikumar for the Appellant. None appeared for the Respondent. JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, J. - These appeals are filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated December 7, 2000, framing the following questions of law : "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances ofโฆ
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492