TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not required to deduct tax on such payment, levy of penalty under section 271C upon assessee was not sustainable. The entire order of the Tribunal is already reproduced in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and hence the same is not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. Since the relief is granted by the ld. CIT(A) by following the order of this Tribunal referred supra, we do not find any infirmity in the said order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. - Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1738/Del/2023 for AY 2014-15, arises out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivil work in nature for providing amenities. EDC enhance the value of property and the value additions fetch higher price from prospective customers. Thus, EDC payments made by the builders to HUDA are covered under service contract and provisions of section 194C are applicable on service contracts as per CBDT Circular No. 681 dated 08.03.1994. 13. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the judgment of ITAT Delhi in the case of Regards Developers (P.) Ltd v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax in IT Appeal No. 6535 of 2019 dated 30.11.2022, which covers the applicability of provisions of Section 271C and not Section 40(a)(ia). 14. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee filed a detailed submission which is reproduced hereunder:- During the year under consideration assessee company had made a payment of Rs. 2,07,54,440/- towards EDC charges to/on behalf of Director Town Country Planner Govt. of Haryna. The DTCP is a government undertaking and no TDS is required for the payment to the Govt. u/s 196 of the IT.Act. The assessee entered into agreement with Haryana Govt. through Haryana Governor through Director Town Country Planning(DTCP). That the clause of agreement provided for payment of EDC charge to HUDA on behalf of Director Town Country Planning(DTCP), Govt. of Haryana. There is no privity of contract/agreement between assessee and HUDA that such payments are to be made to HUDA. DTCP directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and hence the expenditure would be liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed a sum of Rs 2,07,54,440/- in the reassessment proceedings completed u/s 147 of the Act dated 17.12.2019. 5. No challenge was made by the assessee either before the ld. CIT(A) or before us challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act by the ld. AO. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submissions made by it before the ld. AO. Apart from that, it also stated that in any case, the disallowance of expense u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be restricted to 30% of the expenditure pursuant to the amendment brought in the Finance Act applicable for Asst Year 2014-15. The ld. CIT(A) by following the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
