Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
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 4811 
Join Channel 
