https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768988 The ITAT Delhi quashed a demand order u/s 201(1) read with 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C on external development charges paid to HUDA. The assessee argued the order dated 30.03.2021 for AY 2014-15 was time-barred under Section 201(3) limitation provisions. The tribunal held that Finance Act 2014 amendments to Section 201(3) were prospective from 01.10.2014, not retrospective. Since the assessee filed TDS statements timely under Section 200, the demand order should have been passed within two years from the financial year end when statements were filed. Following precedent in Turner General Entertainment case, the tribunal found the order beyond prescribed time limit and allowed the assessee's appeal. en-us Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Apr 2025 08:37:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768988 The ITAT Delhi quashed a demand order u/s 201(1) read with 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C on external development charges paid to HUDA. The assessee argued the order dated 30.03.2021 for AY 2014-15 was time-barred under Section 201(3) limitation provisions. The tribunal held that Finance Act 2014 amendments to Section 201(3) were prospective from 01.10.2014, not retrospective. Since the assessee filed TDS statements timely under Section 200, the demand order should have been passed within two years from the financial year end when statements were filed. Following precedent in Turner General Entertainment case, the tribunal found the order beyond prescribed time limit and allowed the assessee's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768988