<?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 (4) TMI 38 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325924</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions. It determined that payments for outsourcing of production work, placement charges to cable/DTH operators, and uplinking charges were subject to TDS under section 194C, not section 194J, based on established judicial precedents and CBDT guidelines. The order was issued on 30th March 2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 11:12:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 38 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325924</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions. It determined that payments for outsourcing of production work, placement charges to cable/DTH operators, and uplinking charges were subject to TDS under section 194C, not section 194J, based on established judicial precedents and CBDT guidelines. The order was issued on 30th March 2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>