Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
