YUM RESTAURANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are governed by Section 194C of the Act, not Section 194I, based on a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the assessee rightly deducted tax at source under Section 194C.
What were the facts?
The assessee deducted TDS under Section 194C on Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges, while the AO held it should have been under Section 194I, leading to a demand for short TDS and interest. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, confirming the demand but reducing the interest.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges fall under Section 194C or Section 194I of the Income Tax Act for TDS purposes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 194C,Section 194I,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “E” BENCHES, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
PER MANISH AGARWAL, A.M.: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)/ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Surat [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10016493 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of order dated 26.03.2021 passed u/s 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.
Brief facts of the case are that order u/s 201/201(1) of the Act was passed by AO dated 26.03.2021 holding that the assessee was in default by not
ITA 5168/DEL/2025 YUM RESTAURANTS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. deducting tax at source on the Common Area Maintenance charges [“CAM”] u/s 194 I as against has made deduction u/s 194C of the Act @ 2% thus, there is a shortfall of TDS of INR 32,82,507/- and interest u/s 201(1A) of INR 29,70,682/-. Accordingly, total demand of INR 62,53,189/- was created.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 30.06.2025, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee wherein ld. CIT(A) though had confirmed the demand created u/s 201(1) however, reduced the interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking various grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo wherein Grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, it is stated the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13 in ITA No. 1115/Del/2020 vide order dated 03.10.2022.
Heard the contentions of both parties at length and perused the material available on record. As observed above, in Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee, it was claimed that this issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has held that CAM charges are covered u/s 194C and therefore the assessee has rightly deducted the tax at source @ 2% u/s 194C of the Act and not @ 10% u/s 194(1) of the Act. The relevant observations of the CO-ordinate Bench in para 6 of the order are as under:- 6. “The undisputable fact in this case is that while the lease rentals are paid based on a fixed percentage on the net revenue, the CAM charges are based on the per sq . ft. area. The observation of the ld. CIT(A) is that the rent by any name , lease , sub-lease , tenancy or the reliance on the judgment wherein the services are intrapolated into the rent stand on a different pedestal. In the instant case , the determination of the rent or CAM are separate and the CAM arrangements are not essential and an integral part for use of the premises. While there are no expenses incurred against the rent except for general building maintenance and municipal charges, the CAM involves employment of separate staff and separate
ITA 5168/DEL/2025 YUM RESTAURANTS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. operations involved on day to day basis. Hence, we hold that the provisions for rent are governed by Section 194I and CAM charges by Section 194C of the Act. The AO is directed to re-compute the CAM charges, taking into consideration the two sections mentioned above.”
As could be observed that Co-ordinate Bench has already held that CAM charges are governed by the provision of section 194C of the Act therefore, the assessee is liable to deduct the tax at source u/s 194C. Accordingly, Ground of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed.
The remaining Grounds of appeal of the assessee are consequential in nature hence, not adjudicated.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date- 31.08.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr. P.S* Copy to: YUM RESTAURANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, PANNAL, 1ST FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 2, 619/2 1 CHHATARPUR MANDIR ROAD, NEW DELHI-110074 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), 2 CIRCLE-78(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., DELHI 3
More judgments on Section 194C
- Champion Omdev Construction Limited, Patna vs Asst Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1…ITA 72/PAT/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Champion Omdev Construction Limited, Patna vs ACIT Circle 1, PatnaITA 155/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Champion Omdev Construction Limited…ITA 547/PAT/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Raj Construction, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward TDS-2, VadodaraITA 327/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Subramanian Aravind, Tuticorin vs Ward 1, TuticorinITA 297/CHNY/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026