Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
