Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Section 194C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New ... vs Acit Circle-77, New Delhi on 11 September, 2019
A similar view was also taken by the Co-
ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in case of R.P.S Infrastructure Ltd.
vs. ACIT in 5805, 5806 & 5349/Del/2019 vide order dated
23.07.2019. Therefore, on an identical facts and respectfully
following the orders of the Co-ordinate Benches as aforesaid, we
hold that the impugned penalty u/s 271C of the Act is not
sustainable. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is set aside and the
penalty is directed to be deleted."
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Santur Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, New ... vs Acit Range-77, New Delhi on 18 December, 2019
for execution of various external development works and as and
when the development works are carried out, the EDC's liabilities
are reduced accordingly. It is also not in dispute that HUDA is
engaged in acquiring land, developing it and finally handing it over
for a price. It is also not in dispute that EDC is fixed by HUDA from
time to time. However, the fact of the matter remains that payment
has been made to HUDA through DTCP which is a Government
Department and the same is not in pursuance to any contract
between the assessee and HUDA. Thus, the payment of EDC is not
for carrying out any specific work to be done by HUDA for and on
behalf of the assessee but rather DTCP which is a Government
Department which levies these charges for carrying out external
development and engages the services of HUDA for execution of the
work. Therefore, it is our considered view that the assessee was not
required to deduct tax at source at the time of payment of EDC as
the same was not out of any statutory or contractual liability
towards HUDA and, therefore, the impugned penalty was not
leviable. We note that similar view has been taken by the Co-
ordinate Benches of ITAT Delhi in the cases of Santur
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA 6844/Del/2019 vide order
dated 18.12.2019, Sarv Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT in ITA No.5337 &
5338/Del/2019 vide order dated 13.09.2019 and Shiv Sai
Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.5713/Del/2019 vide
order dated 11.09.2019.
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977
Sarv Estate Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs Jcit Range-77, New Delhi on 13 September, 2019
for execution of various external development works and as and
when the development works are carried out, the EDC's liabilities
are reduced accordingly. It is also not in dispute that HUDA is
engaged in acquiring land, developing it and finally handing it over
for a price. It is also not in dispute that EDC is fixed by HUDA from
time to time. However, the fact of the matter remains that payment
has been made to HUDA through DTCP which is a Government
Department and the same is not in pursuance to any contract
between the assessee and HUDA. Thus, the payment of EDC is not
for carrying out any specific work to be done by HUDA for and on
behalf of the assessee but rather DTCP which is a Government
Department which levies these charges for carrying out external
development and engages the services of HUDA for execution of the
work. Therefore, it is our considered view that the assessee was not
required to deduct tax at source at the time of payment of EDC as
the same was not out of any statutory or contractual liability
towards HUDA and, therefore, the impugned penalty was not
leviable. We note that similar view has been taken by the Co-
ordinate Benches of ITAT Delhi in the cases of Santur
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA 6844/Del/2019 vide order
dated 18.12.2019, Sarv Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT in ITA No.5337 &
5338/Del/2019 vide order dated 13.09.2019 and Shiv Sai
Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.5713/Del/2019 vide
order dated 11.09.2019.