NHRCL acquired the land of the assessee purportedly under an agreement and deducted tax at source from the compensation paid. Thereafter, a supplementary deed was entered into between the assessee and the NHRCL under which some additional amount was paid to the assessee and tax was deducted from that part of the compensation also. The assessee requested NHRCL to reverse the tax deducted on the ground that no tax was deductible. NHRCL replied that exemption from tax was not applicable to the compensation on the land acquired from the assessee and that the tax deducted from the payment made to the assessee was duly deposited with the Department. According to the assessee her income was exempted from tax and she could not fill Schedule TDS-2 and hence could not make an application under section 199 of the 1961 Act read with rule 37BA(3)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 whereas according to NHRCL the assessee had to file a return and claim refund. On a writ allowing the petition the Court held that  the income received by the assessee on account of the property acquired by NHRCL by private negotiations and sale deed was exempted from tax. According to the public notice issued for acquisition of land through direct purchase and private negotiations by the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer for implementing the project, while purchasing the land directly for the project the compensation would be fixed by giving 25 per cent. enhanced amount of the total compensation being calculated for the land concerned in terms of the provisions of sections 26 to 33 and Schedule I to the 2013 Act. Undisputedly, the land was acquired for a public project. A policy decision had been taken by the State Government under its Government Resolution dated May 12, 2015 for acquiring the property by private negotiations and purchases for implementation of public project. The methodology was also provided. The computation of compensation had to be under the provisions of the 2013 Act which was introduced to expedite the acquisition for the implementation of the project. If the parties would not agree with the negotiations and direct purchase, then compulsory acquisition under the provisions of the 2013 Act had to be resorted to. The 2013 Act also recognised the acquisition through an agreement. NHRCL was not a specified person within the meaning of section 46 of the 2013 Act and the provisions of the section would not be attracted. Therefore, since the exemption under section 96 of the 2013 Act would apply and no tax can be levied on the amount of compensation NHRCL should not have deducted tax from the amount of compensation paid to the assessee. Balakrishnan v. UOI (2017)391 ITR 178 (SC) and VIswanathan M. v. CCIT WP (C) No. 3227 of 2020, dated 18-2-2020 relied on. Court also held that   it was not possible for the court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the assessee was required to file return or not. NHRCL had already deducted tax which it ought not to have been deducted. Therefore, (i) NHRCL should file a correction statement as provided under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 200 of the 1961 Act to the effect that the tax deducted by it was not liable to be deducted, (ii) the Department shall process the statement including the correction statement that might be filed under section 200A more particularly clause (d) thereof and (iii) the parties should thereafter take steps for refund of the amount in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 Act and the 1962 Rules. Circular No. 36 of 2016, dated October 25, 2016 (2016) 388 ITR (St.) 48)