COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -TDS-01 vs DIAMOND TREE

Judgment text excerpt

$~113 & 114 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 06.08.2025 + ITA 275/2025 + ITA 276/2025 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS-01 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC & Ms.Aditi Sabharwal, Advocate. versus DIAMOND TREE .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge in these appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is to the common order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi (ITAT) in 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/ Signature Not Verified Signed By:AWANISH ITA 275-276/2025 Page 1 of 8 CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:11.08.2025 17:21:52 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/2020 has already settled the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the department, regarding TDS deduction of such common area maintenance charges as under: 13. In the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, we concur with the claim of the id. AR that as the payments towards CAM charges are in the n