GOOD EARTH SIXTY NINE PROJECTS LLP,LAJPAT NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 77(1), LAXMI NAGAR

Notice u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law. 2. Order u/s 201(1A)/(1A) of the Act is bad in law. 3. Assessing Officer (A) has erred in arriving the finding that the assessee has failed to deduct TDS u/s 194C of the Act, amounting to Rs.12,54,400/- (2% of EDC/IDC paid to HUDA). 4. Assessing Officer has erred in charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, amounting to Rs.11,66,592/- 5. Assessing Officer has erred in arriving the finding that the assessee has failed to deduct TDS u/s 194C of the Act, amounting to Rs.3,40,000/- (2% of EDC/IDC paid to HUDA) 6. Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, amounting to Rs.3,16,200/- 7. The appellate craves to add, alter, and amend any ground of appeal during the hearing of appeal.

Suffice to say, the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action treating it as the assessee is in default for not having deducted TDS on external development charges paid to M/s. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). This being the clinching factual position, learned counsel could hardly dispute that hon’ble juri ictional high court in Puri Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 444 (Del.) appears to have already settled the issue against the assessee and in the department’s favour thereby concluding that such a payment of external development charges indeed attracts TDS deduction under chapter XVII of the Act. I thus see no merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground, which is hereby rejected in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 3 | P a g e