TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) by assessing officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserves to be uncalled for. 2. The assessing officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in charging tax u/s 194IA of Rs. 3,50,500/- towards the purchase of the property. The same deserves to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend, or DELETE any ground of appeal during the course of hearing." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was subjected to proceedings under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), wherein the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the same was not justified under the facts of the case. The other grounds were general and consequential in nature. 5. The CIT(Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the statutory provisions, dismissed Ground No. 02 by holding that section 194-IA clearly mandates deduction of tax where the consideration for transfer of immovable property exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs and that such threshold is to be seen with reference to the property as a whole and not with reference to the individual shares of co-owners. The CIT(Appeals) relied upon the principle of interpreting the transaction in its "real light" as emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of property transfer provisions, holding that arti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icated separately. In the result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in entirety. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that that the the share of the assessee being 25% was approximately 17 lakhs and therefore was clearly below the threshold limit of 50 lakhs. Further, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that that the amendment in section 194- IA of the Act for aggregation of consideration in case of multiple transferors was introduced vide Finance Act 2024 and effective from 01- 04-2024 and is not applicable to the impugned assessment year. The ld. counsel for the assessee also placed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chanaben Rajendrasingh Deval vs. Income-tax Officer, TDS [2025] 173 taxmann.com 722 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)/[2025] 212 ITD 414 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)[02-04-2025], the Ahmedabad ITAT held that where assessee had made payments to two sellers, both of which were individually below threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs prescribed under section 194IA, provisions of section 194IA were not attracted and therefore, assessee could not be held to be an assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Act. 13. On careful consideration of the facts and legal position, we find merit in the contention of the assessee. It is an undisputed position that the assessee had purchased the property from multiple co-owners and the consideration attributable to the share of each c....