IREO PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 74 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/74/2026HC DelhiDLHC01109467202518 May 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court acknowledged that the issue concerning TDS on External Development Charges stands concluded so far as the High Court is concerned, referencing its own judgment in Puri Construction Private Limited. However, recognizing that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court with an SLP filed by an affected assessee (Florentine Estates Of India Ltd.), the Court decided not to keep the present appeals pending indefinitely. The Court disposed of all the appeals by stating that the final decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Florentine Estates Of India Ltd. will bind both parties. Until the Supreme Court's decision, the recovery of disputed demands against the appellants was stayed. The Court further directed that if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the assessees, they can apply to drop the demand, and if against the assessees, the Department can enforce the demand. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the appeals were disposed of pending a higher court's decision.

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 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 core issue revolves around the applicability of TDS provisions to these charges. The appeals were filed before the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) is applicable on External Development Charges, as a question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee's contention, as presented by their counsel, is that the issue of TDS on External Development Charges has been decided by the Delhi High Court in the case of Puri Construction Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. However, they pointed out that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed before the Supreme Court against this judgment, and interim relief has been granted to the assessees, staying coercive measures. They prayed for the appeals to be kept pending until the Supreme Court's decision and for similar interim relief. The Revenue, represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel, submitted that the issue has been set at rest by the Delhi High Court's judgment in Puri Construction Private Limited. No further arguments were recorded for the Revenue regarding the pending SLP or the requested interim relief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~134 to 143 & 146, 147 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 6/2026 CM APPL. 2248/2026 FLORENTINE ESTATES OF INDIA LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Yuvraj Singh and Mr. Pankaj Saraogi, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Ms. Sakashi Shairwal, JSC. 135 + ITA 20/2026 CM APPL. 2558/2026 M/S IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate. versus DCIT, CIRCLE-74(1), NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given. 136 + ITA 21/2026 CM APPL. 2656/2026 M/S IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate. versus

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

%

18.05.

2026 O R D E R

1.

The present batch of appeals involves a common question relating to TDS on External Development Charges.

2.

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).

3.

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.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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.

8.

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.

9.

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.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →