TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of taxpayer on CAM charges & appeal delay. Section 194-C applies. Delay condoned.</h1> <h3>M/s Welgrow Hotels Concepts (P) Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-78 (4) Delhi</h3> M/s Welgrow Hotels Concepts (P) Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-78 (4) Delhi - TMI Issues involved:The judgment involves issues related to the applicability of tax provisions on Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges and the delay in filing the appeals.Issue 1: Applicability of tax provisions on CAM chargesThe assessee appealed against the order u/s 201(1A) regarding withholding tax liability on CAM charges. The first appellate authority confirmed the finding that the assessee was in default for not deducting tax on CAM charges as per section 194-I of the Act. The assessee argued that CAM charges should be governed by section 194-C, not 194-I. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to oversight, as explained by the counsel and supported by an affidavit. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee as in default for not deducting tax on CAM charges, which were considered part of rental activities. The Coordinate Bench's decision in a similar case favored the assessee, holding that CAM charges should be governed by section 194C, not 194-I. The judgment followed the precedent and directed the AO to re-compute the CAM charges accordingly.Issue 2: Delay in filing the appealsThere was a delay of 115 days in filing the appeals, which was attributed to oversight on the part of the counsel and communication gap between the counsel and the assessee. The delay was condoned based on the reasons provided in the application for condonation of delay, including the departure of an employee causing the communication gap. The delay was deemed unintentional and condoned to allow the appeals to proceed.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of tax liability on CAM charges and the delay in filing the appeals. It clarified the applicability of tax provisions on CAM charges, ruling in favor of the assessee based on previous decisions and directing the AO to re-compute the charges. Additionally, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned due to genuine oversight and communication issues between the parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
