<?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>2007 (3) TMI 660 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151727</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was competent to pass a fresh order under section 201(1A) despite a previous order being cancelled. It was determined that the appellant was liable to deduct tax under section 195 for a non-resident seller, as evidenced by the seller&#039;s status and documentation. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that interest under section 201(1A) could not be charged beyond the date of tax payment, resulting in the partial allowance of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:59:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 660 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151727</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was competent to pass a fresh order under section 201(1A) despite a previous order being cancelled. It was determined that the appellant was liable to deduct tax under section 195 for a non-resident seller, as evidenced by the seller&#039;s status and documentation. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that interest under section 201(1A) could not be charged beyond the date of tax payment, resulting in the partial allowance of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>