https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326705 The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, ruling that the order passed by the AO was time-barred, payments to franchisees were not subject to TDS under Section 194C, TDS on retainership fees was correctly deducted under Section 194J, and no TDS was required on the service tax component. Appeals for 2003-04 to 2006-07 were partly allowed, and those for 2007-08 to 2010-11 were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326705 The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, ruling that the order passed by the AO was time-barred, payments to franchisees were not subject to TDS under Section 194C, TDS on retainership fees was correctly deducted under Section 194J, and no TDS was required on the service tax component. Appeals for 2003-04 to 2006-07 were partly allowed, and those for 2007-08 to 2010-11 were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326705