DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI V. IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 28/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-74(1), New Delhi as the appellant and M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited as the respondent. The appeals pertain to the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi, which had deleted the demand for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments made to HUDA. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in not applying the judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd., which supported the deduction of TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, referencing the High Court's decision, found in favor of the Revenue, reinstating the demand for TDS on the EDC payments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716872 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Puri Construction Private Limited Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 201(1); 194C

Judgement Text

"1 ITA Nos. 24 & 28/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 24 & 28/Del/2025 Asstt. Yr.: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-74(1), New Delhi. Vs M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited, 304, Kanchan House, Karampura, West Delhi-110015. PAN: AADCG 9136 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. & Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Department represented by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 24 & 28/Del/2025 for A.Y. 2014- 15 & 2015-16 arise against Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi’s as many orders; both dated 18.10.2024 passed in case nos. CIT(A), Delhi- NFAC/2013-14/10042216 & CIT(A), Delhi-NFAC/2014-15/10149338, respectively, in proceedings u/s 201(1) read with section 201(1A) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 24 & 28/Del/2025 2. The Revenue pleads the following identical substantive grounds in the instant twin cases: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi has erred in deleting the demand raised u/s.201(1)/201(1A) on account of non-deduction of TDS by the Deductor Company on EDC payments to HUDA and not considering the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, Delhi in the case of M/s Puri Construction Private Limited Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors. 159taxmann.com 444 (Delhi) [2024] 462 ITR326(Delhi) on this issue. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case judiciously that External Development Charges (EDC) paid by deductor company to HUDA are liable for deduction of TDS u/s.194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in light of judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, Delhi in the case of M/s Puri Construction Private Limited Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors., it was within the power of the Ld. CIT(A) to hold that the Deductor Company has defaulted due to non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments to HUDA u/s 194C of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi failed to exercise the powers conferred upon him under Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ld. CIT(A) may confirm, reduce, modify, or annul the assessment, in the light of facts & circumstances of the case and applicable legal principles. 5. That, the appellant craves to add, amend, modify and delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Suffice to say, a combine perusal of both the instant case files reveal that the Revenue herein is aggrieved against the CIT(A)’s findings, treating the assessee as not the assessee in default u/s 201(1A) of the Act for not having deducted TDS on external development charges “EDC” payments made to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) involving varying sums in. This being the clinching factual position, the assessee could hardly dispute that the hon’ble Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 24 & 28/Del/2025 jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has already settled the issue in the department’s favour that payment of such “EDC” charges indeed attracts TDS deduction being contractual in nature u/s 194C of the Act. We, thus, find no reason to express our concurrence with the assessee’s vehement contentions supporting the CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings, under challenge. The Revenue succeeds in its identical sole substantive ground under appeal in both these cases in very terms. No other ground or argument has been raised before us. 4. These Revenue’s twin appeals in ITA Nos. 24 & 28/Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files. Order pronounced in open court on 18.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18.08.2025. *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "