<?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>1998 (4) TMI 521 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160275</link>
    <description>Tax deduction at source was treated as inapplicable to earthwork excavation that was essentially pure labour work, unless earth was brought from an outside source and deposited at the work site. In canal digging, lining and repairing works, the material component was held to attract tax deduction at the lower rate of 1 per cent under clause (ii) of rule 17-G(1). The authorities were directed to apply these rates while deducting tax at source.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:40:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 521 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160275</link>
      <description>Tax deduction at source was treated as inapplicable to earthwork excavation that was essentially pure labour work, unless earth was brought from an outside source and deposited at the work site. In canal digging, lining and repairing works, the material component was held to attract tax deduction at the lower rate of 1 per cent under clause (ii) of rule 17-G(1). The authorities were directed to apply these rates while deducting tax at source.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>