<?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>2013 (6) TMI 570 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234745</link>
    <description>The case involved various issues such as disallowance of expenses and non-deduction of TDS. The ITAT allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 and partly allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08. The disallowances were overturned based on principles of consistency, lack of substantiation, and specific provisions governing TDS requirements. The ITAT directed the AO to delete disallowances on telephone expenses, partners&#039; conveyance expenses, TDS on membership fees, and subcontracting fees, among others. Payments to legal heirs of deceased partners were allowed due to an overriding charge in the partnership deed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:06:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 570 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234745</link>
      <description>The case involved various issues such as disallowance of expenses and non-deduction of TDS. The ITAT allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 and partly allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08. The disallowances were overturned based on principles of consistency, lack of substantiation, and specific provisions governing TDS requirements. The ITAT directed the AO to delete disallowances on telephone expenses, partners&#039; conveyance expenses, TDS on membership fees, and subcontracting fees, among others. Payments to legal heirs of deceased partners were allowed due to an overriding charge in the partnership deed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>