<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (11) TMI 322 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72010</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Department&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s order that deleted the Rs. 17,40,000 addition for truck hire charges. It was determined that the hire charges did not constitute a work contract under s. 194C of the IT Act, 1961, as there was no contract for the carriage of goods between the assessee and the truck owners. Consequently, the requirement for TDS deduction was not applicable, and the Department&#039;s argument for continuous truck hiring activity subject to TDS was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2023 19:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110306" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 322 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72010</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Department&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s order that deleted the Rs. 17,40,000 addition for truck hire charges. It was determined that the hire charges did not constitute a work contract under s. 194C of the IT Act, 1961, as there was no contract for the carriage of goods between the assessee and the truck owners. Consequently, the requirement for TDS deduction was not applicable, and the Department&#039;s argument for continuous truck hiring activity subject to TDS was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>