<?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>2015 (3) TMI 51 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257115</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand and interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It found that the principal-agent relationship existed between HDFC Bank and the retail merchant, not the assessee. The tribunal concluded that the provisions of sections 194H and 194C were inapplicable to the alliance agreement between the parties, leading to the dismissal of the Assessing Officer&#039;s demands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:51:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 51 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257115</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand and interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It found that the principal-agent relationship existed between HDFC Bank and the retail merchant, not the assessee. The tribunal concluded that the provisions of sections 194H and 194C were inapplicable to the alliance agreement between the parties, leading to the dismissal of the Assessing Officer&#039;s demands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>