Income Tax : The shift replaces multiple filings with a single consolidated form for buyers. The key takeaway is that compliance is now simpler...
Income Tax : Section 194-IA mandates 1% TDS on immovable property purchases from resident sellers if consideration or stamp duty value is ₹50...
Income Tax : Section 194IA of the Income Tax Act mandates buyers to deduct 1% TDS on property transfers exceeding ₹50 lakh. The 2025 amendmen...
Income Tax : Learn how to remove excess 20% TDS demand on property sales under Section 194-IA due to PAN-Aadhaar linking issues, using CBDT Cir...
Income Tax : As per section 194IA of income tax Act, if immovable property, other than agricultural land, is transferred tax (TDS) will be dedu...
Income Tax : From October 2024, TDS under section 194-IA will apply based on total consideration for property sales, not individual payments. U...
Income Tax : It has been observed that deductors are wrongly entering the tax amount deducted on sale of property in 'interest' or 'others' or ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that deducting TDS only on part of the purchase price of immovable property was contrary to Section 194IA. TDS w...
Income Tax : The Tribunal upheld TDS liability where tax was deducted only on part of the property value. It ruled that TDS must be applied on ...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that the amendment requiring aggregation of consideration under Section 194-IA applies only from October 2024. For earl...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered s...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statut...
Income Tax : Central Government hereby specifies that no TDS shall be deducted under section 194-IA of Income Tax Act on any payment made to ...
Income Tax : Every person responsible for deduction of tax under section 194-IB shall furnish the certificate of deduction of tax at source in ...
Income Tax : CBDT has vide notification No. 45/2017 notified that claim for refund of TDS paid can be furnished by the deductor in Form 26B ...
Income Tax : Due date of filing statement for deduction of tax at source (TDS) on Sale of Property u/s 194-IA has been extended to 30 days from...
Income Tax : 26C. Furnishing of evidence of claims by employee for deduction of tax under section 192.- (1) The assessee shall furnish to the p...
The Tribunal held that deducting TDS only on part of the purchase price of immovable property was contrary to Section 194IA. TDS was required to be deducted on the full consideration of ₹4.81 crore.
The Tribunal upheld TDS liability where tax was deducted only on part of the property value. It ruled that TDS must be applied on the entire consideration for immovable property transactions.
The shift replaces multiple filings with a single consolidated form for buyers. The key takeaway is that compliance is now simpler, faster, and less prone to errors.
ITAT ruled that the amendment requiring aggregation of consideration under Section 194-IA applies only from October 2024. For earlier years, TDS applicability must be determined individually per buyer-seller transaction.
The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered sale deed triggers tax liability even if consideration is disputed.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statutory period renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings illegal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not questioned on stamp duty valuation and old payment sources. It remanded the case for fresh assessment with directions to consider explanations afresh.
Tribunal held that TDS liability under section 194-IA cannot arise unless Revenue proves that payment was actually made. Mere third-party statements were found insufficient to treat buyer as an assessee in default.
Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the ₹2.5 Cr flat investment was fully explained through agreement details and a DHFL housing loan, leaving no basis for an addition. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was remanded for fresh examination since the foundation for concealment no longer survived.
