IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 438/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 442/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17] ITA No. 455/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16]

Dy. Commissioner Vs. IREO Pvt Limited Delhi C-4, 1^st Floor, Malviya Nagar New Delhi PAN – AAACO 6644 B ITA No. 439/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 440/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2014-15]

Dy. Commissioner Vs. IREO Waterfront Pvt Ltd Delhi AIPL Business Club Golf Course Road, Sector – 54 Gurgaon, Haryana PAN : AACCV 2433 R ITA No. 441/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16]

Dy. Commissioner Vs. IREO Residencies Company Pvt Ltd Delhi AIPL Business Club Golf Course Road, Sector – 54 Gurgaon, Haryana PAN : AACCI 3321 F ITA No. 450/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16]

Dy. Commissioner Vs. IREO Hospitality Company Pvt Ltd Delhi AIPL Business Club Golf Course Road, Sector – 54 Gurgaon, Haryana PAN – AACCI 3262 R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv Department By : Shri Shrikant Namdeo, CIT-DR Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025

ORDER

PER BENCH:-

The above captioned bunch of 7 separate appeals by the Revenue are preferred against 7 separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), New Delhi dated 03.12.2024, 03.12.2024, 04.12.2024, 03.12.2024, 03.12.2024, 03.12.2024 and 04.12.2024 respectively.

2. Since common grievances are involved in the captioned 7 appeals and pertain to connected assessees, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules.

4. Both the parties before us fairly agreed that ITA No. 438/DEL/2025 be taken as the lead case and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for other assessees also in the same group in view of identical facts, except with variance in figures. Accordingly, we proceed to take up the appeal in ITA No. 438/DEL/2025.

ITA No. 438/DEL/2025

5. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi has erred in deleting the demand raised w/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. 159 taxmann.com 444 (Delhi) [2024] 462 ITR 326 (Delhi) on this issue. 2. That 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. That 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)-29, 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 leave to reserve itself the right to add, alter, amend and substitute any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

6. At the very outset, the ld. DR vehemently stated that the issue involved in all these 7 appeals is identical and has been decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional