IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member &

Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 3779/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 ITA No. 3780/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 ITA No. 3781/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs The Amusement Rooms Pvt. Ltd.

506, 5^th Floor, Aayakar 325A, Top Floor, Plot No. 4 & 5, Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, Shreshtha Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AADCT9838P Assessee by : Sh. Pradeep Batra, Adv.

Revenue by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 11.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 11.03.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

These Revenue’s three appeals in ITA Nos. 3779 to

3781/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2015-16, arise against the Addl./JCIT(A), Panchukla’s DIN & order Nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074683392(1) & 1074749547(1) dated 19.03.2025, 20.03.2025 and for Assessment Year 2016- 17, arise against the Addl./JCIT(A), Madurai’s DIN & order Nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074160055(1), in proceedings u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

3. Delay of 9 days in filing of all the appeals is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4. It transpires during the course of hearing that the Revenue’s instant three appeals raise it’s identical sole substantive grievance that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s TDS recovery demands made in proceedings u/s 291(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) of the Act; involving varying sums, respectively.

5. We find in this factual backdrop that the learned CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion reads as under:

“6. Decision:

6.1 On Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1to 4:- The assessee is engaged in the business of recreational and amusement activities and has taken space on lease from Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited (ADI) at Ambience Mall, Gurugram' Haryana' For the purpose of maintenance services of the common area, the assessee entered into a separate arrangement with Ambience Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. (AFMPL), a group Company, which provided maintenance services for common areas of the mall. The maintenance charges were paid to AFMPL, and TDS was deducted @ 2o/o under section 194C of the Act' TDS on lease rent was deducted under Section 1941 of the Act.

A survey was conducted at the premises of Ambience Group by the ACIT(TDS), Circle 73(1), Delhi on

12.02.2018. During the survey' ii was observed that besides lease rent, the Ambience Group also recovered common maintenance (CAM) charges. The AO alleged that these CAM charges were part of the rental activity and should have been subject to TDS under section 1941 of the Act at the rate of 10% rather than 2% deducted under Section 194C of the Act.

6.2 The assessee submitted that the maintenance charges paid to AFMPL were for Separate services provided for common area maintenance, which is distinct from the lease rent paid to ADI. TDS on maintenance charges was correctly deducted under Section 194C of the Act as per the contract for maintenance services' The assessee referred to circular No.715 dated 08.08.1995, which clarifies that payments for maintenance services fall under Section 194C, not section 194I. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Kapoor watch company Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (I.T.A. No. 889/Del/2020, A.Y. 2011-12), where the Tribunal held that TDS on maintenance charges paid for common area maintenance services should be deducted under section 194C and not under Section 194I. The assessee further distinguished the present case from the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High in the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. ACIT (389 ITR 38), as the present case involves separate payments