<?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>2011 (12) TMI 84 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207887</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling that no Principal-Agent relationship existed between the assessee and the Collection Centres, making Section 194H inapplicable. Additionally, it was noted that no payment was made by the assessee to the Collection Centres, and the payment received by the assessee was at agreed rates. The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for the alleged failure to deduct tax at source under Section 194H was erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2016 11:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 84 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207887</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling that no Principal-Agent relationship existed between the assessee and the Collection Centres, making Section 194H inapplicable. Additionally, it was noted that no payment was made by the assessee to the Collection Centres, and the payment received by the assessee was at agreed rates. The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for the alleged failure to deduct tax at source under Section 194H was erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>