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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3147/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the payment of external development charges to HUDA attracts TDS deduction under Chapter XVII of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee's grievance was rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order treating it in default for not deducting TDS on external development charges paid to HUDA. The Assessing Officer levied interest under Section 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C.

What were the issues?

Whether payment of external development charges to HUDA attracts TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, necessitating TDS deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1A),Section 194C,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 24.07.2025Pronounced: 24.07.2025

Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A), Prayagraj’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1075126925(1), dated 27.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:

1.

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.

3. 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 jurisdictional 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. 2 | P a g e Order pronounced in the open court on 24th July, 2025

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →