<?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 (9) TMI 913 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169778</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)&#039;s order deleting the disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) for VSAT, lease line, and transaction charges. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the relief granted by the CIT (A) was considered appropriate, and the Revenue&#039;s contention regarding the tax effect and bifurcation of charges was rejected. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and concluded that no TDS was deductible on payments to the Stock Exchange, thus upholding the deletion of the disallowance amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2015 12:55:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 913 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169778</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)&#039;s order deleting the disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) for VSAT, lease line, and transaction charges. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the relief granted by the CIT (A) was considered appropriate, and the Revenue&#039;s contention regarding the tax effect and bifurcation of charges was rejected. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and concluded that no TDS was deductible on payments to the Stock Exchange, thus upholding the deletion of the disallowance amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>