Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
