Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (3) TMI 850 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
Determination of whether Common Area Maintenance charges are in the nature of rent and liable to TDS under section 194I or 194C of the Income Tax Act. Interpretation of relevant judicial precedents and CBDT circulars in relation to the treatment of CAM charges. Examination of the applicability of the judgment in the case of Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 372. Analysis of the order passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Consideration of the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta v. ACIT (2016) 389 ITR 38. Comparison of the treatment of CAM charges paid to independent service providers versus the developer/owner of the property.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeals filed by the assessee challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the treatment of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges as rent liable to TDS under section 194I of the Act. The assessee argued that the CAM charges were for services related to common areas not in their possession, such as cleaning, maintenance, security, etc., and thus should be treated under section 194C instead. The assessee also contended that the judgment in Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 372 should apply, and the CBDT circulars were relevant to their case.

2. The Tribunal referred to a similar issue in the case of Yum Restaurants India (P.) Ltd. and analyzed the nature of the payments made for rent and CAM charges. The Tribunal observed that the lease agreement included separate payments for rent based on revenue share and CAM charges based on the area maintained. The ld. CIT(A) held that CAM charges were part of rent under section 194I, considering the common area services provided to the assessee, and relied on CBDT circulars and judicial precedents to support this view.

3. The Tribunal differentiated between rent and CAM charges, noting that the payments were based on different criteria and involved distinct services. While rent was for the use of the premises, CAM charges were for specific maintenance services unrelated to the leased area. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the CAM charges under section 194C and upheld the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes.

4. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between rent and CAM charges based on the nature of services provided and the criteria for payment. The decision emphasized the separate treatment of these charges under different sections of the Income Tax Act to ensure accurate tax deductions and compliance. The Tribunal's analysis clarified the applicability of TDS provisions to CAM charges and upheld the assessee's contentions regarding the distinct nature of these payments.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates