<?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>2006 (11) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT , DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2974</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the respondent-company was not obligated to deduct tax at source on salaries paid to expatriate employees from a collaborating company abroad as the salaries had not been actually paid by the respondent. The court emphasized that the obligation to deduct TDS arises only at the time of making the payment. It was further ruled that failure to deduct tax at source did not warrant a penalty, and interest recovery from the respondent-company was not justified. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeals without costs, specifying that the judgment was not to serve as a precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT , DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2974</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the respondent-company was not obligated to deduct tax at source on salaries paid to expatriate employees from a collaborating company abroad as the salaries had not been actually paid by the respondent. The court emphasized that the obligation to deduct TDS arises only at the time of making the payment. It was further ruled that failure to deduct tax at source did not warrant a penalty, and interest recovery from the respondent-company was not justified. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeals without costs, specifying that the judgment was not to serve as a precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>