{"id":58716,"date":"2026-03-02T12:38:54","date_gmt":"2026-03-02T07:08:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/swiftrans-international-p-ltd-v-ito-2025-174-taxmann-com-1185-345-ctr-667-251-dtr-177-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2026-03-02T12:38:54","modified_gmt":"2026-03-02T07:08:54","slug":"swiftrans-international-p-ltd-v-ito-2025-174-taxmann-com-1185-345-ctr-667-251-dtr-177-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/swiftrans-international-p-ltd-v-ito-2025-174-taxmann-com-1185-345-ctr-667-251-dtr-177-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"Swiftrans International (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 174 taxmann.com 1185 \/ 345 CTR 667 \/ 251 DTR 177 (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><br \/><\/strong>Where payments towards External Development Charges (EDC) were made during financial year 2015-16, the limitation of seven years prescribed under section 201(3) expired on 31-3-2023 and therefore the order passed thereafter treating the assessee as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was time-barred. The contention of the Revenue that such action was saved by section 153(6)(i) pursuant to liberty granted by the High Court in earlier proceedings was rejected, as the liberty to proceed further was expressly subject to action being taken \u201cin accordance with law\u201d and did not dilute or override the statutory limitation contained in section 201(3). The earlier judgment merely clarified the applicable TDS provision and did not contain any finding or direction enabling initiation of proceedings beyond limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order and consequential notice were quashed and set aside. (AY. 2016-17).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Assessee in default-Limitation-Order passed beyond period prescribed under section 201(3) is barred by limitation-Liberty granted by Court to proceed \u201cin accordance with law\u201d does not override statutory limitation-Order and notice quashed. [S. 153(6)(i), 194C, 201(3), Art. 226]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58716","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fh2","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58716","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58716"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58716\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":58717,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58716\/revisions\/58717"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58716"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58716"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}