S3 INFRAREALITY PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7606/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 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, noting that the case law in Puri Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT had settled the issue against the assessee, held that the payment of external development charges indeed attracted TDS deduction. Consequently, the lower authorities' findings treating the assessee in default under Section 201(1) were upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 arose from an order that treated the assessee in default for not deducting TDS on payments made for external development charges to HUDA, considering them as contractual payments under Section 194C of the Act. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether payments made for external development charges to HUDA attract TDS deduction under Section 194C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,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 ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 24.12.2025Pronounced: 24.12.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081176959(1) dated 25.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 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 appeal challenges both the learned lower authorities respective findings holding it as the assessee in default for not having deducted TDS on payment of external development charges payments made to M/s Haryana Urban Development Authority (“HUDA”) which stands treated as contractual payments u/s 194C of the Act.

1.

S3 Infrareality Pvt. Ltd. 4. I notice in this precise factual backdrop that case law 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 “EDC” payment indeed attracts TDS deduction. I thus uphold both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating the assessee as the assessee in default in section 201(1) proceedings in very terms.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →