IREO PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 74 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court acknowledged that the matter was concluded so far as its own jurisdiction was concerned, referencing the Puri Construction judgment. However, it also noted that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. The Court found itself unable to keep the present appeals pending indefinitely, as the Supreme Court's final decision might take time. Consequently, the Court disposed of all the appeals by observing that the fate of the judgment to be passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Florentine Estates Of India Ltd. (which is the SLP arising from the Puri Construction case) would bind both parties. Until the Supreme Court's decision, the recovery of disputed demands against the appellants was stayed. The Court directed that if the Supreme Court decides in favour of the assessees, they can move the Assessing Officer to drop the demand. Conversely, if the decision is against the assessees, the Department can enforce the demand. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the appeals were disposed of based on the pending Supreme Court proceedings.
What were the facts?
This judgment concerns a batch of appeals filed by various entities, including Florentine Estates of India Ltd., M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited, Ireo Residencies Company Private Limited, Ireo Private Limited, Ireo Hospitality Company Private Limited, Ireo Waterfront Private Limited, Good Earth Sixty Nine Projects LLP, and M/s GLS Infratech Private Limited. The appeals challenge orders or actions related to Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on External Development Charges. The Revenue, represented by various Income Tax Officers and Deputy Commissioners, is the respondent. The procedural history indicates that the Delhi High Court had previously ruled on this issue in the case of Puri Construction Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. However, an appeal against this judgment, a Special Leave Petition (SLP), has been filed before the Supreme Court by M/s Florentine Estates Of India Ltd., where interim relief was granted to the assessees.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Delhi High Court's decision in Puri Construction Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. (2024) 462 ITR 326 (Delhi) conclusively settles the issue of TDS on External Development Charges, and if so, what is its applicability given the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Assessee's Contention: The assessees argued that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed before the Supreme Court against the Puri Construction judgment, and interim relief has been granted by the Supreme Court, staying coercive measures against assessees. They prayed for the appeals to be kept pending until the Supreme Court's decision and for similar interim relief. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, submitted that the issue has been set at rest by the Delhi High Court in the Puri Construction judgment. No specific argument was recorded for the Revenue regarding the pendency of the SLP or the prayer for keeping the appeals pending.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
DCIT, CIRCLE-74(1), NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given. 137 + ITA 73/2026 CM APPL. 6516/2026
IREO RESIDENCIES COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha and Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocates.
versus
DCIT CIRCLE 74 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC. 138 + ITA 74/2026 CM APPL. 6518/2026
IREO PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha and Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocates.
versus
DCIT CIRCLE 74 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC. 139 + ITA 75/2026 CM APPL. 6520/2026
IREO HOSPITALITY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha and Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocates.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
versus
DCIT CIRCLE 74 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC. 140 + ITA 76/2026 CM APPL. 6522/2026
IREO PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha and Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocates.
versus
DCIT CIRCLE 74 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC. 141 + ITA 77/2026 CM APPL. 6524/2026
M/S IREO PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha and Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocates.
versus
DCIT, CIRCLE-74 (1), NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC. 142 + ITA 78/2026 CM APPL. 6526/2026
IREO WATERFRONT PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha and Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocates. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
versus
DCIT CIRCLE 74 (1)NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC. 143 + ITA 79/2026 CM APPL. 6528/2026
IREO WATERFRONT PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha and Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocates.
versus
DCIT, CIRCLE-74(1) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC.
146 + ITA 299/2026 CM APPL. 23327/2026 CM APPL. 23329/2026
GOOD EARTH SIXTY NINE PROJECTS LLP .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Kaushik and Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 77(1),
NEW DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC, Ms. Hemlata Rawat and Mr. V. K. Saksena JSCs. 147 + ITA 328/2026 CM APPL. 27210/2026
M/S GLS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha & Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advs.
versus
ITO (TDS), WARD-74(3) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agrawal, Sr SC with Ms Monica Benjamin, Mr. Gibran Naushad, JSCs, Mr. Rohit Chakraborty and Mr. Vivan Garg, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
%
2026 O R D E R
The present batch of appeals involves a common question relating to TDS on External Development Charges.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, at the outset, submitted that the issue has been set at rest by this Court in the case of Puri Construction Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors reported in (2024) 462 ITR 326 (Delhi).
Learned counsel for the appellant, at this juncture, pointed out that against the above referred judgment, affected assessee has preferred a Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) No. 11614/2024 titled as M/s Florentine Estates Of India Ltd. v. Union Of India, in which Hon’ble the Supreme Court has granted interim relief vide order dated 20.08.2024 to the effect that no coercive measure shall be adopted against the assessees. He prayed that till the matter is decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
matters be kept pending and interim relief as has been given by the Supreme Court be granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
There cannot be any quarrel over the issue that so far as this Court is concerned, the matter stands concluded. Moreover, since the matter is pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, we cannot keep the present appeals pending for indefinite period, as the final decision by Hon’ble the Supreme Court may take some time.
We, therefore, dispose of all these appeals by observing that fate of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case M/s Florentine Estates Of India Ltd. (supra) shall bind both the parties.
Until the matters are decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, recovery of the disputed demand against the appellant shall remain stayed. In case the SLP/appeal is finally decided by the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee(s), they shall be free to move appropriate application before the Assessing Officer to formally drop the demand.
In case the matter is decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court against the assessee, the Department shall be free to enforce the demand in accordance with law.
Appeals stand disposed of alongwith all pending applications.
DINESH MEHTA, J
VINOD KUMAR, J MAY 18, 2026/dd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
