DEPUTY GOTHWAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-74(1), DELHI

ITA 2862/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)9 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not present significant facts before the lower authorities. However, considering the alternative submission that the payee would have offered the income in its return, and the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act, the matter was remanded to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order confirming the AO's action of treating the assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges (EDC). The assessee argued that EDC payments were statutory obligations, not contractual, and thus Section 194C was not attracted.

What were the issues?

Whether TDS was deductible under Section 194C on payments of External Development Charges (EDC) made to a government department, and whether the assessee was in default for non-deduction, especially considering the payee's potential to offer the income in its return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 196,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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 “B”NEW DELHI

Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate, Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.12.2025

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 10.02.2025, passed by Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Hyderabad. In this case the assessee did not appear before the first appellate authority and thus, the impugned order is an ex

parteorder even though the merits have been discussed. In this case the Ld. AO vide order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, dated 27.03.2024, has found the assessee to be in default for not deducting tax at sour

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 194C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →