<?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 (7) TMI 343 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249306</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the lease premium paid by the assessee to CIDCO did not constitute &quot;rent&quot; under section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source from these payments. The Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the demands for TDS and interest. The judgment was delivered on June 19, 2014.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 343 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249306</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the lease premium paid by the assessee to CIDCO did not constitute &quot;rent&quot; under section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source from these payments. The Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the demands for TDS and interest. The judgment was delivered on June 19, 2014.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>