Case Law Details
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court has quashed penal action against DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt Ltd related to the failure to deduct Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on External Development Charges (EDC) paid to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The judgment provides relief to DLF and marks an important precedent in the matter of TDS deductions.
This ruling refers to the financial year 2013-14 and challenges the order dated 28th November 2022, passed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bone of contention was whether DLF could be considered an assessee-in-default under Section 201/201(1A) of the Act for not deducting withholding tax related to EDC paid to HUDA.
Highlighting a previous judgment by a coordinate bench of the court in favor of DLF, the court decided that the same principle should apply to the penalty order and demand notice contested in this petition. Consequently, the penalty order and demand notice against DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt Ltd have been quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. These writ petitions concern Financial Year (FY) 2013-14.
2. The petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 28.11.2022 passed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the demand notice of even date, i.e., 28.11.2022 issued under Section 156 of the Act.
3. It is not in dispute that insofar as the merits of the matter are concerned, i.e., whether the petitioner could be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201/201(1A) of the Act for its failure to deduct withholding tax qua External Development Charges (EDC) paid to the Haryana Urban Development Authority [in short, “HUDA”], the coordinate bench has ruled in favour of the petitioner.
3.1. In this behalf, our attention is drawn to the judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT (OSD), 2023:DHC:2401-DB.
4. Given this circumstance, according to us, the same result should follow vis-a-vis the penalty order and the demand notice assailed in the instant writ petition.
5. Accordingly, the aforementioned penalty order and demand notice are quashed.
6. The writ petitions are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
7. Consequently, pending interlocutory applications, i.e., CM No.54650/2022 [in W.P.(C)No.17195/2022] and CM No.54658/2022 [in W.P.(C)No.17201/2022] shall stand closed.
8. Interim order dated 16.12.2022 passed in the above-captioned writ petitions shall stand vacated.
9. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
