<?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 (2) TMI 883 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272178</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals concerning tax withholding demands under sections 194I and 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for payments made for transportation services involving containers. It held that the payments were for transportation of goods, not rental of containers, justifying tax deduction under section 194C. The Tribunal emphasized the incidental nature of container use in the transportation process, rejecting the Assessing Officer&#039;s basis for demands. Citing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court&#039;s judgment, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, concluding that tax deduction under section 194I was not required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 01:09:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 883 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272178</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals concerning tax withholding demands under sections 194I and 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for payments made for transportation services involving containers. It held that the payments were for transportation of goods, not rental of containers, justifying tax deduction under section 194C. The Tribunal emphasized the incidental nature of container use in the transportation process, rejecting the Assessing Officer&#039;s basis for demands. Citing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court&#039;s judgment, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, concluding that tax deduction under section 194I was not required.</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=272178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>