IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4314/DEL/2025 A.Y. : 2014-15 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. LIBERTY RETAIL ROOM NO. 607, 6^TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR REVOLUTIONS LIMITED, BHAWAN, LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT, 4/42, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI – 110 092 NEW DELHI - 26 [PAN: AABCL0641A]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Sh. Satish Goel, CA Department by : Sh. Khitesh Gupta, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing 25 .11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026

O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

This appeal by the Revenue is emanating from the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-

1, Mumbai 19.3.2025 relevant to assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:-

i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Addl/JCIT(A)-I, Mumbai was justified in holding that Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges paid by the assessee are in the nature of contractual payment are liable to be deducted TDS u/s. 194C of the I.T. Act and not as per provisions of Section 194I of the Act.

ii) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Addl. /JCIT(A)-I, Mumbai was justified in not considering the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Appejay Surrendera Park Hotels Ltd. vs. UOI in WP(C) 1924/1999, wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that the word ‘rent’ in section 194I of the I.T. Act has to be interpreted widely and not confined to payments received towards a lease, sub lease or tenancy or transactions of such like nature.

2. At the outset, L.d AR has submitted that the issues in dispute are squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 passed in ITA No. 1016/Del/2020 vide order dated 22.11.2023 and its subsequent corrigendum dated 1.2.2024. It was further submitted that the facts of the case being identical on the issue of TDS deduction on CAM charges. He further submitted that against the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2023 of the Tribunal, the Department preferred the appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 22.5.2025 in ITA no. 170/2025 & CM Appeal Nos. 31794/2025, 31795/2025 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.

3. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contention of the grounds of appeal.

4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find force in the contention of the Ld. AR that the issues in the instant appeal are squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 passed in ITA No. 1016/Del/2020 vide order dated 22.11.2023 and its subsequent corrigendum dated 1.2.2024. It is noted that the facts of the present case are identical on the issue of TDS deduction on CAM charges. We further find cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR that against the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2023 of the Tribunal, the Department preferred the appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 22.5.2025 in ITA no. 170/2025 & CM Appeal Nos. 31794/2025, 31795/2025 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by observing as under:-

“7. As noted above, the Assessee filed a second appeal before the learned ITAT. learned ITAT following its earlier decision in ITA No.504/Del/2020, concluded that CAM charges could not be brought within the scope of definition of “rent” as defined under Section 194-I of the Act. According to the ITAT, the payments made would fall within the meaning of “work” as defined under Section 194-C of the Act.

8. In the aforesaid context, the Revenue has projected the following questions for consideration of this Court:

“A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in deleting the demand of Rs.4,41,121/- on account of short deduction of TDS under Section 194-I of Income Tax Act, 1961