2026 (7) TMI 1093

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. We take ITA NO 998/Del/2026 for A.Y. 2017-18. 3. The assessee has raised the various grounds in appeal: 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in -law and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer has erred in computing the TDS rate @ 10 instead of TDS @ 2 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the demand raised by the assessing officer of Rs. 91,314 on account of TDS rate of 10% u/s 194I. 4. On fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e for the A.Y. 2011-12 & 2015-16. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. In the Assessee's own case in ITA No. 5062/Del/2024 & ITA no.5063/Del/2024 for A.Y.2011-12 & 2015-16 the Co-ordinate bench allowing the appeal held as under: 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue vehemently argues before us that there was a composite 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/2020 has already sett....

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 actual rent that was paid to the owner by the assessee company. As the facts in volved in the case of the assessee before us remains the same a s were therein involved in the a fore said case, therefore, in the backdrop of our a fore said deliberations, and respect fully following the a fore said 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 afore said observation s set a -side the order of the Id. CIT(A) who had approved the order passed by the AO treating the assessee company as an assessee-in-de fault u/ s 201(1) of the Act. The grounds of appeal no. 4 to 4.5 are allow....