Swatantra Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-77, Delhi.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
TDS on payment to HUDA/state government: exemption under section 196.
Result: Operative order controls. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 196
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- TDS on payment to HUDA/state government: exemption under section 196.
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
Swatantra Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Commissioner of Income A-71, FIEE Okhla Industrial Area, Tax, Phase-II, Range-77, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACS1849N (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Ms. Neha Gupta CA Shri Rajat Vaishanw Adv. Respondent by: Shri Prikshit Singh, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 14 09 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 09 2022
The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXI, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27.06.2019 arising from the penalty order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2015-16.
2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.4,95,273/- under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for non deduction of tax at source as per provisions of Chapter XVII-B towards amount paid as External
“6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The Assessing Officer/JCIT levied penalty of Rs.6,14,460/- under Section 271C for short deduction/non deduction of tax at source alleging default committed by the assessee under Section 194C on payment of External Development Charges (EDC) to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). With the assistance of the ld. counsel, we find that the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana (Haryana Government) has issued clarification on TDS deduction on EDC payments vide letter dated 19.06.2018 which is self explanatory and thus reproduced herein for ready reference:
Appellant / assessee submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the appellant's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
“6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The Assessing Officer/JCIT levied penalty of Rs.6,14,460/- under Section 271C for short deduction/non deduction of tax at source alleging default committed by the assessee under Section 194C on payment of External Development Charges (EDC) to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). With the assistance of the ld. counsel, we find that the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana (Haryana Government) has issued clarification on TDS deduction on EDC payments vide letter dated 19.06.2018 which is self explanatory and thus reproduced herein for ready reference:
Operative decision and relief
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses TDS on payment to HUDA/state government: exemption under section 196. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with tds on payment to huda/state government: exemption under section 196. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending |
| Repository release | HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Swatantra Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-77, Delhi.?
TDS on payment to HUDA/state government: exemption under section 196.
Which facts matter most?
Swatantra Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Commissioner of Income A-71, FIEE Okhla Industrial Area, Tax, Phase-II, Range-77, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACS1849N (Appellant) (Respondent)
What did the ITAT Delhi decide?
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses TDS on payment to HUDA/state government: exemption under section 196. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
196
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - TDS on payment to HUDA/state government: exemption under section 196 - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- 196 - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Heart Foundation of India v. CIT - ITAT Mumbai
- Ramesh Kumar Patodia Vs Citibank N.A. - Court / Tribunal to be verified
- ACIT vs. ARMEE INFOTECH - Court / Tribunal to be verified
Different outcome / possible distinction
- Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , Kanpur Vs AR Polymers Pvt ltd - Quashed / set aside
- Ambaradi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. & Others - Allowed
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.