update >
taxmann
R. Prakash vs. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward -2(1), Bangalore [2013] 38 taxmann.com 123 (Bangalore - Trib.)
Buyer should withhold tax from sum paid to a non-resident co-owner to acquire a house property -IT/ILT: Where assessee purchased a property jointly owned by co-owners, in view of fact that one of co-owners of property was a non-resident, assessee was required to deduct tax at source under section 195 to extent sale-consideration was paid to said co-owner Read More
AT
CREDAI against proposal of 1% TDS on property deals
previous
Pay 1% TDS on 50L flat from June
Oosh >
No way to open the eyes of the blindfolded taxman !
SG
Add-on
Sale of all Immovable property now subject to TDS – an insight and practical challenges (deloitte)
<previous
TDS on sale of immovable property – Tedious? (deloitte)
The observations in the penultimate para (opening words – “On the flipside..), in one’s perception,are not complete; in that, without the correspondingly warranted changes having been made in the other related sections of the Act,taxpayer’s claim for a refund would be seriously hampered /jeopardised.
To pinpoint:
Provisions for tax exemption of capital gains (sections 54 and 54 EC) continue to be in force. Should a taxpayer opt to, or intend opting for, such exemption, by complying with the stipulated conditions within the specified time frame, then he gets an extended time (2/3 years) for being taxed/to pay tax. If so, the other inter-related/connected provisions would require to have been correspondingly changed; but not done. To be focused on and requiring a close study is, besides the saving section 197, section 199 (rwr 37BA there under).
March 4, 2013
<> ‘ROPING THE REGISTRAR’: The learned CA has, as usual, doled out his free ideas to the government; but seems to have over sighted unwittingly the relevant following dimensions :
taxmann
R. Prakash vs. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward -2(1), Bangalore [2013] 38 taxmann.com 123 (Bangalore - Trib.)
Buyer should withhold tax from sum paid to a non-resident co-owner to acquire a house property -IT/ILT: Where assessee purchased a property jointly owned by co-owners, in view of fact that one of co-owners of property was a non-resident, assessee was required to deduct tax at source under section 195 to extent sale-consideration was paid to said co-owner Read More
AT
CREDAI against proposal of 1% TDS on property deals
previous
Pay 1% TDS on 50L flat from June
Oosh >
No way to open the eyes of the blindfolded taxman !
SG
Add-on
Sale of all Immovable property now subject to TDS – an insight and practical challenges (deloitte)
<previous
TDS on sale of immovable property – Tedious? (deloitte)
The observations in the penultimate para (opening words – “On the flipside..), in one’s perception,are not complete; in that, without the correspondingly warranted changes having been made in the other related sections of the Act,taxpayer’s claim for a refund would be seriously hampered /jeopardised.
To pinpoint:
Provisions for tax exemption of capital gains (sections 54 and 54 EC) continue to be in force. Should a taxpayer opt to, or intend opting for, such exemption, by complying with the stipulated conditions within the specified time frame, then he gets an extended time (2/3 years) for being taxed/to pay tax. If so, the other inter-related/connected provisions would require to have been correspondingly changed; but not done. To be focused on and requiring a close study is, besides the saving section 197, section 199 (rwr 37BA there under).
March 4, 2013
<> ‘ROPING THE REGISTRAR’: The learned CA has, as usual, doled out his free ideas to the government; but seems to have over sighted unwittingly the relevant following dimensions :
1. Provisions for tax exemption of capital gains (section 54 and 54 EC), so far as one knows, is still in force. Should a taxpayer opt to, or intend opting for, such exemption, by complying with the stipulated conditions within the specified time frame, then he gets an extended time (2/3 years) for being taxed/to pay tax. If so, the other inter-related/connected provisions would require to have been correspondingly changed; but not done. To be focused on is, besides the saving section 197, section 199 (rwr 37BA there under).
2. Finance Bill 2012 sought to bring in a like provision but later dropped like a hot potato, for sane reasons explained at that time. In fact, in that admittedly ill-conceived provision, also the idea of ‘roping in’ registrar as an ‘ally’ (same as now suggested ) did find a place. Ostensibly, the registrar was not too inclined to be so roped in; and to fully co-operate even with regard to the other attempted mandates such as PAN, That, inferably, is the reason why, having been bitten more than once hence shy, in the rebooted proposal the government saw no purpose in assigning any role to the registrar.
3. If one were to go by the latest public announcement, the DTC Bill has the prospects of being introduced in the Parliament for enactment before long. According to the last seen text of the Bill, the above referred present scheme of tax exemption is slated to undergo a significant change. The subject TDS requirement will then continue to haunt the scenario; and one might have to wait to know how it is going to be covered in the expectedly ‘simplified code’.
Ref. (the CA's earlier contribution >
.http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/s-murlidharan/sensible-budget-measures-being-rolled-back/article3297144.ece
Ref. (the CA's earlier contribution >
.http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/s-murlidharan/sensible-budget-measures-being-rolled-back/article3297144.ece
