<?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>2014 (4) TMI 811 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246842</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee regarding the allowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 for payment of commission. The Tribunal found that the commission income and expenditure were related to securities, exempting the assessee from TDS deduction under section 194H. The decision was based on the interpretation of securities under the relevant Acts, and previous Tribunal decisions supporting the assessee&#039;s position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 811 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246842</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee regarding the allowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 for payment of commission. The Tribunal found that the commission income and expenditure were related to securities, exempting the assessee from TDS deduction under section 194H. The decision was based on the interpretation of securities under the relevant Acts, and previous Tribunal decisions supporting the assessee&#039;s position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>