Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACJ, SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, J
AMMAR ABDULLA ARSIWALA MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
ITO (IT)-1(1)(2) MUMBAI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property purchase and tds deduction (Para 2) |
| 2. assessee's argument on compliance (Para 3) |
| 3. dr's counter-argument (Para 4) |
| 4. rejoinder by ld.ar (Para 5) |
| 5. order set aside and restored (Para 6) |
ORDER
PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt.29-08-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to AY. 2016-17. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the demand raised by the AO u/s.201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and also the interest levied by the AO u/s. 201(1A) of the Act.
2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased a property from a person, named, Shri Shabbir Sarafali Golawala for a consideration of Rs.2,21,00,000/-. The assessee deducted TDS @ 1% u/s. 194IA of the Act. The AO noticed that the seller, Shri Shabbir Sarafali Golawala, is a non-resident and hence he held that the assessee should have deducted TDS u/s. 195 of the Act @ 20%. Since there was short deduction of tax at source, the AO treated the assessee herein as an assessee in default. Accordingly, the AO raised a demand of Rs. 20,99,500/- u/s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
