Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
The article determines that the applicant institute qualifies as a specified person required to deduct TDS under Section 51 read with Notification No.50/2018 CT because substantial regulatory control (not day to day operational control) by the Central Government exists; Supreme Court precedent overrides administrative circulars. It clarifies that "control" denotes regulatory authority sufficient to trigger notification coverage. On contractual threshold, where supply is continuous and performed in parts, the contract as a whole-aggregating all part invoices-determines the threshold for TDS; separate contracts are assessed individually. Outcome: the institute is liable to deduct TDS.
The article determines that the applicant institute qualifies as a specified person required to deduct TDS under Section 51 read with Notification No.50/2018 CT because substantial regulatory control (not day to day operational control) by the Central Government exists; Supreme Court precedent overrides administrative circulars. It clarifies that "control" denotes regulatory authority sufficient to trigger notification coverage. On contractual threshold, where supply is continuous and performed in parts, the contract as a whole-aggregating all part invoices-determines the threshold for TDS; separate contracts are assessed individually. Outcome: the institute is liable to deduct TDS.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
