+ W.p.(C) 7905/2025 M/S. Ninex Developers Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ito Ward-76(1

$~60 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 7905/2025M/S. NINEX DEVELOPERS LIMITED.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Manish Paliwal and Ms MeghaYadav, Advocates.M/S. NINEX DEVELOPERS LIMITED.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Manish Paliwal and Ms MeghaYadav, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD-76(1) NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through:Mr Debesh Panda, SSC with MrKanishk Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R%29.05.2025 CM APPL. 34860/2025 1.Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 7905/2025 and CM APPL. 34861/2025 3.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying asunder: “a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,order or direction to quash and set aside the impugnedorder dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Respondent underSection 201(1) read with Section 201(1A) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017–18 (Financial Year 2016–17), on the ground that thesame is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary tolaw;order or direction to quash and set aside the impugnedorder dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Respondent underSection 201(1) read with Section 201(1A) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017–18 (Financial Year 2016–17), on the ground that thesame is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary tolaw; b)Declare that payments made by the Petitioner towardsExternalDevelopmentCharges(EDC)totheDirectorateofTownandCountryPlanning(DTCP)/Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP)ExternalDevelopmentCharges(EDC)totheDirectorateofTownandCountryPlanning(DTCP)/Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) are statutory in nature and not subject to Tax Deductedat Source (TDS) under Section 194C or any otherprovision of the Income Tax Act, 1961; c)Quash all consequential actions or proceedings arisingout of or pursuant to the impugned order dated21.12.2023,includinganyproposedorongoingproceedings under Section 271C of the Income TaxAct, 1961;out of or pursuant to the impugned order dated21.12.2023,includinganyproposedorongoingproceedings under Section 271C of the Income TaxAct, 1961; d)Declare that no coercive steps shall be taken by theRespondents for recovery of the alleged demanddetermined under the impugned order, including anyaction for levy of penalty or prosecution, in light of thebona fide conduct of the Petitioner and conflictingpositions taken by different arms of the Government;”Respondents for recovery of the alleged demanddetermined under the impugned order, including anyaction for levy of penalty or prosecution, in light of thebona fide conduct of the Petitioner and conflictingpositions taken by different arms of the Government;” 4.The question involved in the present case is whether the petitionerwas liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194C of the Act in respectof the external development charges paid to Haryana Shahari VikasPradhikaran. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said issueis covered against the petitioner by the decision of this Court in PuriConstructions Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax:Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:1040-DB. She prays that the present petitionbe also dismissed following the aforesaid decision. 5.The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application isalso disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 29, 2025RKClick here to check corrigendum, if any