Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC adjudicated that Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges constitute shared expenses for common works and utilities, not rental payments. The court definitively ruled that CAM charges are maintenance contributions for cleanliness and utilities, fundamentally distinct from lease or license charges. By rejecting the lower authorities' interpretations, the HC clarified that TDS provisions under sections 194C or 194I are inapplicable to such maintenance expenditures. The court's precise reasoning emphasized the inherent nature of these charges as collective infrastructure support, not compensatory payments for premise occupation, thereby invalidating prior administrative orders and establishing a clear legal distinction in tax treatment of CAM charges.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
