TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether compensation paid for acquisition of land through private negotiations and a sale deed under the land acquisition regime was exempt from income tax so that tax deduction at source could not be made; (ii) whether the deductor was required to file a correction statement and enable processing of refund once TDS had been wrongly deducted.
Issue (i): whether compensation paid for acquisition of land through private negotiations and a sale deed under the land acquisition regime was exempt from income tax so that tax deduction at source could not be made.
Analysis: The compensation was paid for a public project and was worked out with reference to the land acquisition framework under the 2013 Act. Acquisition by agreement or direct purchase did not alter the character of the acquisition, and the statutory exemption extended to awards or agreements made under the Act, except in the limited case covered by Section 46. The respondent was not a specified person within Section 46. The circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes also recognised that compensation received in respect of an award or agreement exempt under Section 96 would not be taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Conclusion: The compensation was exempt from income tax and TDS ought not to have been deducted. The finding is in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether the deductor was required to file a correction statement and enable processing of refund once TDS had been wrongly deducted.
Analysis: Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for credit of TDS to the deductee, and Section 200(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits a correction statement to rectify mistakes in the statement furnished by the deductor. Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 also contemplates processing of the statement and determination of refund due. On that basis, the proper course was to require the deductor to file a correction statement and for the Department to process it, leaving the parties to take consequential refund steps under the Act and Rules.
Conclusion: The deductor was directed to file the correction statement and the Department was directed to process it for refund-related action. The finding is in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded on the substantive tax issue and consequential relief was granted for correction of the TDS record and refund under the statutory framework.
Ratio Decidendi: Compensation paid under an agreement for land acquisition in connection with a public project retains the benefit of the statutory exemption under Section 96 of the 2013 land acquisition law, and where TDS is wrongly deducted the deductor must rectify the statement so that the deductee can obtain credit and refund in accordance with the Income-tax Act and Rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
