<?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>2010 (12) TMI 212 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203104</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision that payments to 15 doctors were professional fees, not salaries, and TDS was correctly deducted under Section 194J. As the doctors paid taxes on their income, the hospital was not in default under Section 201(1) and was not liable for interest under Section 201(1A). The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 212 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203104</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision that payments to 15 doctors were professional fees, not salaries, and TDS was correctly deducted under Section 194J. As the doctors paid taxes on their income, the hospital was not in default under Section 201(1) and was not liable for interest under Section 201(1A). The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>