<?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 (4) TMI 874 - ITAT, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210092</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, determining that the assessee was not considered an &#039;assessee in default&#039; for failing to deduct TDS on the supply portion. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reassess the compensation payments and survey work amounts, emphasizing the necessity of distinguishing between supply and work contracts and accurately quantifying payments for TDS compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 874 - ITAT, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210092</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, determining that the assessee was not considered an &#039;assessee in default&#039; for failing to deduct TDS on the supply portion. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reassess the compensation payments and survey work amounts, emphasizing the necessity of distinguishing between supply and work contracts and accurately quantifying payments for TDS compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>