https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311720 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) and determining that the payments made to GMADA for External Development Charges (EDC) were not contractual in nature. Consequently, these payments did not require Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that the EDC payments were more akin to a levy for development purposes rather than a service contract, thereby absolving the appellant from being treated as 'assessee in default' under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). en-us Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:21:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311720 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) and determining that the payments made to GMADA for External Development Charges (EDC) were not contractual in nature. Consequently, these payments did not require Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that the EDC payments were more akin to a levy for development purposes rather than a service contract, thereby absolving the appellant from being treated as 'assessee in default' under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311720