<?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>2012 (7) TMI 859 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167774</link>
    <description>A subordinate assessment authority could not forfeit TDS deducted from contract bills after the appellate authority had already found the APGENCO contract to be a pure labour and service contract with no transfer of material, no tax liability on the relevant turnover, and no basis to treat the deduction as excess collection. On remand, the authority was bound by those findings and could not reopen or contradict them. The forfeiture order was therefore unsustainable, and refund of the TDS amount followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 17:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 859 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167774</link>
      <description>A subordinate assessment authority could not forfeit TDS deducted from contract bills after the appellate authority had already found the APGENCO contract to be a pure labour and service contract with no transfer of material, no tax liability on the relevant turnover, and no basis to treat the deduction as excess collection. On remand, the authority was bound by those findings and could not reopen or contradict them. The forfeiture order was therefore unsustainable, and refund of the TDS amount followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167774</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>