Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
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.