<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1087 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271295</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039; decisions in the case, ruling that the relationship between the assessee and distributors was principal-to-principal, exempting the assessee from TDS under Section 194H. Additionally, the Tribunal affirmed that no TDS was required on directors&#039; sitting fees under Section 194J for the relevant assessment years. The Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2016 23:15:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1087 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271295</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039; decisions in the case, ruling that the relationship between the assessee and distributors was principal-to-principal, exempting the assessee from TDS under Section 194H. Additionally, the Tribunal affirmed that no TDS was required on directors&#039; sitting fees under Section 194J for the relevant assessment years. The Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>