2022 (10) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the case by passing the impugned order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of I.T. Act by creating a total demand of Rs.27,24,901/-, which was barred by the limitation period and the Ld. CIT(A) was not at all justified in confirming the action of the Ld. AO because the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the I.T. Act were not applicable. 2. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, section 1941 of the I.T. Act were not applicable to the facts of Appellant's case and the Appellant had correctly deducted the tax at source as per section 194C of the I.T. Act. 3. That the short deduction of TDS worked out by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore, the orders passed by the author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct as against section 194C and consequently, such interest of Rs. 12,87,030/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act on the alleged short deduction is liable to be cancelled. 7. That the authorities below have ignored the fact that various vendors had been issued lower deduction certificate under section 197 for payments to be made by the Appellant to those vendors under section 194C and revenue has accepted such certificate for payments by the Appellant liable to tax deduction under section 194C. 8. That without prejudice to above, the authorities below has ignored the essence of amendment in section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act wherein it was brought into the Act that if the payee has discharged its tax liability, payer cannot be held Asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o be segregated into rent and CAM. On the this, the observation of the ld. CIT(A) is as under: "4.3 Grounds of appeal Nos. 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c), the Appellant has challenged the action of AO in treating CAM charges as part of rent liable for TDS u/s 1941. Undisputedly there is single lease agreement for payment of rent as well as CAM charges. The AR has submitted that payment of CAM charges is nothing but reimbursement of common area maintenance expenses incurred by the lessor on general maintenance, electric, water and security services etc. Further it has been claimed that, the common area is outside the area which is leased out to the assessee. These arguments are not acceptable because the common area and other services provided....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce charges etc. are stipulated to be payable by the lessor, it must form part of rent for the purposes of computing income from house property. In the case before hand, the CAM charges are paid by the lessor and the appellant has no control on actual expenditure to be incurred by the lessor. In view of above mentioned factual and legal position, thus it is clear that the CAM charges paid by the appellant are part of rent liable for TDS u/s 1941 and accordingly other decisions relied upon by the AR are distinguishable on facts. The appellant has also stated that, the AO has incorrectly held that the decision in the case of Japan Airlines Company Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) 377 ITR 372 (SC) is not applicable. I find that this decisio....