IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR & VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ.
APEEJAY SURRENDERA PARK HOTELS LTD. AND ANR – Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS – Respondents
W.P. (C) 1924 & 2130/1999
Decided On : 23-03-2016
INCOME TAX ACT - Section 194-I - Applicability to hotel industry - Whether charges for a room in a hotel is 'rent' - Interpretation of 'rent' - Constitutional validity of Section 194-I - Validity of circulars issued by CBDT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, representing the hotel industry, challenged the applicability of Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) on payments made as 'rent'. They contended that charges for a hotel room do not constitute 'rent' as per the definition in the Act and that the provision violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the definition of 'rent' in Section 194-I is wide and encompasses any payment made for the use of land, building, machinery, plant, equipment, furniture, or fittings, irrespective of ownership. The Court rejected the Petitioners' argument that 'rent' should be limited to payments made under a lease, sub-lease, or tenancy. The Court also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 194-I, finding it to be a reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia.
Issues: 1. Whether charges for a hotel room constitute 'rent' within the meaning of Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether Section 194-I violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the circulars issued by the CBDT expanding the scope of Section 194-I are valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'rent' in Section 194-I is wide and encompasses any payment made for the use of land, building, machinery, plant, equipment, furniture, or fittings, irrespective of ownership. 2. Section 194-I does not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as it is a reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia. 3. The circulars issued by the CBDT expanding the scope of Section 194-I are valid as they serve to clarify the scope and ambit of the provision.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that charges for a hotel room constitute 'rent' within the meaning of Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that the provision is constitutionally valid. The Court also upheld the validity of the circulars issued by the CBDT expanding the scope of Section 194-I.
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. These writ petitions seek a declaration that Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) does not apply to the Hotel Industry since the charges for a room in a hotel is, according to them, not ‘rent’ in terms of Explanation to Section 194-I of the Act.
Profile of the petitioners
2. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1924 of 1999 is by M/s Apeejay – Surrendera Park Hotels Limited (‘ASPHL’), Petitioner No. 1 and Ms. Priya Paul, shareholder of Petitioner No. 1. ASPHL is a public limited company which runs a five star hotel in New Delhi by the name 'Park Hotel'. ASPHL offers a number of facilities and amenities to its guests. It is stated that the charges for a room in the hotel includes not only charges for use and occupation of the room but also for water, electricity, air-conditioning, telephone facility, and various other items or amenities provided for guests in the room. The room tariff charge is therefore stated to be “a composite charge for all the above and not merely for occupying the room alone.”
3. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2130 of 1999 is by the Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associations of India (‘FHRAI’) (Petitioner No. 1), M/s Asian Hotels Limited (‘AHL’) (Petitioner No. 2) and Mr. Sushil Gupta, (Petitioner No. 3) who is the Managing Director (‘MD’) and a shareholder of AHL. FHRAI is stated to be an apex body of hotels and restaurants in India and formed to protect their interests.
Section 194-I as enacted and at present
4. Section 194-I of the Act was inserted with effect from 1st June 1994. The said provision, as it existed at the time of the filing of these petitions, reads as under:
194 - I. "Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to any person any income by way of rent, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income tax thereon at the rate of –
a. fifteen per cent if the payee is an individual or a Hindu undivided family; and
b. twenty per cent in other cases;
Provided that no deduction shall be made under this section where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year by the aforesaid person to the account of, or to, the payee, does not exceed one hundred and twenty thousand rupees.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section:-
(i) "rent" means any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sublease, 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;
(ii) where any income is credited to any account, whether called "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly."
5. It is necessary to note that the definition of 'rent' in Section 194-I of the Act has since undergone a change. It now reads as under:
“194-I. Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of rent, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rate of—
(a) two per cent for the use of any machinery or plant or equipment; and
(b) ten per cent for the use of any land or building (including factory building) or land appurtenant to a building (including factory building) or furniture or fittings:
Provided that no deduction shall be made
Associated Hotels v. R.N. Kapoor (1960) 1 SCR 368
State of Punjab v. M/s. Associated Hotels of India Limited AIR 1972 SC 1131
Northern India Caters (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1979) 1 SCR 557
Hotel and Restaurants Association v. Star India (P) Limited 2006 (12) SCALE 543
The Federation of Hotels & Restaurants Association of India v. Union of India AIR 2007 Del 137
Japan Airlines Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 377 ITR 372 (SC)
Krishna Oberoi v. Union of India (2002) 257 ITR 105 (AP)
State of Punjab v. British India Corporation Limited AIR 1963 SC 1459
Smt. Rajbir Kaur v. S. Chokasiri & Co. AIR 1988 SC 1845
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1
UCO Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Union of India v. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills 1969 (1) SCC 320
Associated Cement Companies Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (2001) 4 SCC 593
C.K. Jidheesh v. Union of India (2005) 13 SCC 37
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.