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 194-IA did not require aggregation of consideration attributable to multiple co-owners for the year in question, and the Finance Act, 2024 amendment was prospective and inapplicable. Because the amount relatable to each co-owner was below the statutory threshold, the purchaser had no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194-IA. As no TDS default survived, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1), and the consequential interest under section 201(1A) was also unsustainable. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench rulings on the same issue and deleted the demand and interest.
Section 194-IA did not require aggregation of consideration attributable to multiple co-owners for the year in question, and the Finance Act, 2024 amendment was prospective and inapplicable. Because the amount relatable to each co-owner was below the statutory threshold, the purchaser had no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194-IA. As no TDS default survived, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1), and the consequential interest under section 201(1A) was also unsustainable. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench rulings on the same issue and deleted the demand and interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.