<?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>Clarification on TDS Application: Three Separate Contracts Exist for Supply, Erection, and Civil Work u/s 194C.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=2523</link>
    <description>TDS u/s 194C - It was wrongly presumed that the contracts entered into between the assessee and the contractor were composite contract and an indivisible contract whereas there were three separate contracts, viz., (i) supply of materials; (ii) for erection and (iii) for civil work portion.... - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:41:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:41:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=293073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Clarification on TDS Application: Three Separate Contracts Exist for Supply, Erection, and Civil Work u/s 194C.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=2523</link>
      <description>TDS u/s 194C - It was wrongly presumed that the contracts entered into between the assessee and the contractor were composite contract and an indivisible contract whereas there were three separate contracts, viz., (i) supply of materials; (ii) for erection and (iii) for civil work portion.... - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:41:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=2523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>