BASE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 73 (3), DEHLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5298/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member)1 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 noted a jurisdictional high court's decision which held that such 'EDC' payments attract TDS deduction. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings treating the assessee in default under section 201(1).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order for Assessment Year 2017-18, concerning proceedings under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's grievance was that it was held in default for not deducting TDS on external development charges paid to HUDA, which were treated as contractual payments. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether external development charges paid to HUDA are subject to TDS deduction as contractual payments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&

For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.01.2026Pronounced: 14.01.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Vadodara’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025–26/1076689930(1) dated 04.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

Suffice to say, the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant twin appeals challenges both the learned lower authorities respective findings holding it as the assessee in default for not having deducted TDS on payment of external

4.

We notice in this precise factual backdrop that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Puri Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 441 (Del.) has already settled the above sole issue against the assessee and in the department’s favour that such are “EDC” payment indeed attracts TDS deduction. We thus uphold both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating as the assessee in default in section 201(1) proceedings in very terms.

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →