TG
No penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) for mere for failure to compute capital gains as per Section 50C
PREV.
Section 194IA of I T Act- A Critique (Supplement)
PREV.
Section 194IA of I T Act- A Critique (Supplement)
cross refer >
http://praja.in/en/blog/m...
http://praja.in/en/blog/m...
<previous
taxindia.pz10.com › In Income Tax | Articles › Section 194IA › TDS
Sec 50C
<
<
Sec 56 (2) (vii)
Myths and misconceptions about Personal Income tax
C < As per the erstwhile clause (b), so also the newly substituted clause, of sub-section (vii) of section 56 (2), if read together with the Explanation (d) thereunder, is seen to rope in within the mischief of the deeming provision any “immovable property being land or building” as specified. As such,it does not seem to, in terms, apply to the property of a special kind, in the form of ‘unit’ of a building; that is, legally as well as commonly known,- Flat or Apartment.
This is the self-same aspect which has earlier been critically examined on this website itself in certain other contexts; for instance, on the implications / scope of section 194IA, etc. However, it is sad that in this write-up and in the related others, has not been even made a mention;infer ably, it has been either skirted or glossed over unwittingly or otherwise.
It is open for experts in the field to eminently consider and come out with a well-reasoned view on or against the validity of the above mentioned intricate point of critique, so as to be of useful guidance to the readers at large.
Myths and misconceptions about Personal Income tax
C < As per the erstwhile clause (b), so also the newly substituted clause, of sub-section (vii) of section 56 (2), if read together with the Explanation (d) thereunder, is seen to rope in within the mischief of the deeming provision any “immovable property being land or building” as specified. As such,it does not seem to, in terms, apply to the property of a special kind, in the form of ‘unit’ of a building; that is, legally as well as commonly known,- Flat or Apartment.
This is the self-same aspect which has earlier been critically examined on this website itself in certain other contexts; for instance, on the implications / scope of section 194IA, etc. However, it is sad that in this write-up and in the related others, has not been even made a mention;infer ably, it has been either skirted or glossed over unwittingly or otherwise.
It is open for experts in the field to eminently consider and come out with a well-reasoned view on or against the validity of the above mentioned intricate point of critique, so as to be of useful guidance to the readers at large.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment