* The
reason for introducing new section 194-IA is for widening of tax base and to
check tax avoidance measures.
* In
India 50% Property Transactions Don't Carry PAN..!
* The
transferee shall be required to comply with all the other compliances of TDS,
example., filing of TDS returns, issue of TDS certificates, etc...!
The Union Budget 2013
- 14 presented by Finance Minister Mr. P. Chidambaram prima facie does not pose
any upside down changes in the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961.
However, a close look
at the fine print reveal that the draftsmen are serious in the business &
would leave no stone unturned for plugging the loopholes which are plaguing the
statute at present.
The Finance Bill 2013-14 proposes levy of TDS (Tax Deduct at
Source) at the rate of 1% on the value of the transfer of immovable property
where the consideration exceeds Rs.50 lakh or / Rs. 5 millon. However,
agricultural land will be exempt.
50%
Property Transactions Don't Carry PAN..!
Presenting the Union
Budget in the Lok Sabha recently, the Finance Minister Mr.P.Chidambaram said
that transactions in immovable properties are usually undervalued &
under-reported. 50% (One half) of the transactions do not carry the PAN of the
parties concerned.
The Finance Minister
said that the proposal to apply TDS was aimed at improving the reporting of
such transactions & the taxation of capital gains.
There are certain
amendments to nullify the judicial decisions & one amendment meant to widen
the tax base and which may have significant impact relates to introduction of
tax deduction at source in respect of transactions in immovable properties.
The Budget 2012
contained a similar provision in section 194 LAA which was withdrawn after
representation & now the Budget 2013 has the same provision in section
194-IA.
Features
of Section 194-IA..!
* * This provision
will be applicable in respect of transactions effected on or / after
01.06.2013.
* * It seeks
deduction of tax at source on transfer of certain immovable property other than
agricultural land referred to in section 2(14).
* * Any person being
a transferee who is liable to pay to a resident by way of consideration for
transfer of any immovable property shall at the time of credit of such sum to
the account of the transferor or at the time of payment in whatever manner, has
to TDS at 1%.
* * The liability to
deduct tax at source is at the time of actual payment or credit of such sum to
the account of the transferor whichever is earlier.
* * The threshold limit for application of TDS
is Rs.50 lakhs. Where the transaction is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the liability
to deduct tax at source will not be applicable.
* * Since the
expression used in the section is “any sum by way of consideration” the
provisions of section 50C will not interfere. Hence, tax deduction at source
will be with reference to apparent consideration only.
Reincarnation
of the Provision..!
What difference did
the Budget 2013 make with regard to the TDS on immovable property transactions?
The apparent
difference is firstly with placing of the section in statute book.
The Budget 2012
numbered it as section 194 LAA and whereas the honorable Finance Minister while
presenting 2013 Budget has inserted the same provision in section 194-IA.
The Finance Bill,
2012 contained some complexity by making reference to stamp valuation adopted
by the State Stamp Valuation Authority as the basis for deduction of tax at
source.
In the Finance Bill,
2013 there is no such reference to the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation
authority, for deduction of tax at source.
The Finance Bill,
2012 gave applicability of the section to only certain specified areas and was
not applicable to the length & breadth of India.
In the Finance Bill, 2013 there is no such
discrimination between big metropolises viz-a-viz the urban lands situated in
other parts of India.
In effect, any
transaction other than agricultural land involving apparent consideration of
Rs.50 lakhs or / more is liable for tax deduction at source under section
194-IA.
Major
Impact of the Amendment..!
The memorandum
provides that while under Section 139A, there is a mandatory requirement to
quote the PAN (Permanent Account Number) for property transactions exceeding
Rs. 5 Lakhs, in many cases, there is no quotation of the PAN even for property
transactions exceeding Rs. 30 Lakhs (basis the Annual Information Return filed
by the Registrar / Sub-registrars).
Due to this, many
immovable property transactions are left unreported.
Further, while there
is a tax deduction at source requirement on various payments made to residents
example salary, interest, etc..!, transfer of immovable property has no such
requirement.
Therefore, the
Finance Minister Mr. P.C. has proposed
that in order to have a reporting mechanism of transactions in the real estate
sector & also to collect tax at the earliest point of time, tax deduction
at source also be mandated for transfer of immovable property (other than
agricultural land) to a resident transferor at the rate of 1% of the transfer
consideration.
It should be noted
that a similar attempt to cover transfer of immovable property under the tax
deduction at source compliance was also made in the past but the same was not
passed.
The Finance Minister
has once again made this proposal, albeit keeping the tax deduction at source procedure
simpler than the previously.
With effect from June
1, 2013, any person who acquires an immovable property (other than agricultural
land) from a resident transferor and where the value of consideration exceeds
Rs 50 Lakhs, shall be required to deduct tax at source at the rate of 1%.
It is still clear the
transferee shall be required to comply with all the other compliances of tax
deduction at source, example., filing of TDS returns, issue of TDS
certificates, etc...!
The Reason
for Introducing Section 194-IA..!
The reason for
introducing section 194-IA is for widening of tax base and to check tax
avoidance measures. The move of the Finance Minister Mr. P.C. is to place check
on real estate sector but when the wheels of economy are in downward trend, the
timing of the decision is debatable. However, removing the discrimination in
applicability of the provision between certain select places is acceptable.
There is no pinning
of responsibility on the registering authorities in section 194-IA which was
there in the envisaged and dropped section 194-LAA. Will the provision be
dropped before be enacted as law or if it survives in the statute book, Will it
be effective in reality when there is no mandate to the registering authorities
is a million dollar question.
No comments:
Post a Comment