2025 (8) TMI 773

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ITA No.5062/Del/2024 and ITA No.5063/Del/20024. 2. Both the appeals relate to Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 and AY 2015-16 respectively. 3. The ITAT decided the aforesaid appeals in favour of the respondent/Assessee by stating in paragraph no.4 onwards as under: "4. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue vehemently argues before us that there was a compo site agreement for rent as well as common area maintenance charges which attracts the impugned higher rate of TDS deduction u/s 194I of the Act in light of Sunil Kumar Gupta (2016) (9) TMI 1198 (P&H). We note that this tribunal in Connaught Plaza Restaurants P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 993 & 1984/2020 and Kapoor Watch Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 889/Del/20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt of the actual rent that was paid to the owner by the assessee company. As the facts involved in the case of the assessee before us remains the same as were therein involved in the aforesaid case, therefore, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, and respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we herein, that as claimed by the assessee, and rightly so, the CAM charges paid by it were liable for deduction of tax at source @2%, i.e., u/s. 194C of the Act. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations set-aside the order of the Id. CIT(A) who had approved the order passed by the AO treating the assessee company as an assessee-in-default u/s 201(1) of the Act. The grounds of appeal no. 4 to 4.5 are allowed in terms....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of another tenant of the same mall and decided as under:- 7. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the impugned payment is not rent but common area maintenance charges paid by various tenants/ owners of the shop to the mall owners. On this undisputed facts the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra) clearly apply wherein the coordinate Bench has held as under :- In sum and substance, only the payments for use of premises/equipment is covered by Section 194-I of the Act. In our considered view, as the CAM charges are completely dependent and separate from rental payments, and are fundamentally for availing common area maintenance services which may be provided by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce of the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act. On the basis of the facts that had emerged in the course of the proceedings, it was gathered by the Department that the owners of the malls in addition to the rent had been collecting CAM charges from the lessees on which TDS was deducted @2% i.e. u/s. 194C of the Act. Observing, that payment of CAM charges were essentially a part of the rent, the AO treated the assessee as an assessee-in-default for short deduction of tax at source u/ss 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. On appeal, it was observed by the Tribunal that the CAM charges paid by the assessee did not form part of the actual rent that was paid to the owner by the assessee company. As the facts involved in the case of the assessee before....