Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Section 206AA read with Rule 114AAA(3) applied where the seller's PAN was inoperative on the date of property purchase because it was not linked with Aadhaar, so higher TDS was prima facie attracted. However, the Tribunal held that the buyer should not bear higher TDS if evidence shows the seller disclosed the transaction in her return and paid due taxes, following the principle underlying section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1). The demand was therefore not finally sustained and the matter was remitted for de novo verification of the seller's tax disclosure and payment.
Section 206AA read with Rule 114AAA(3) applied where the seller's PAN was inoperative on the date of property purchase because it was not linked with Aadhaar, so higher TDS was prima facie attracted. However, the Tribunal held that the buyer should not bear higher TDS if evidence shows the seller disclosed the transaction in her return and paid due taxes, following the principle underlying section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1). The demand was therefore not finally sustained and the matter was remitted for de novo verification of the seller's tax disclosure and payment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.