<?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 (7) TMI 340 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329742</link>
    <description>The High Court of Calcutta allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was not liable to deduct tax at source on the freight component. The Court emphasized that the liability to deduct tax at source rested with the seller, who had acknowledged fulfilling this obligation. Therefore, the Court concluded that Section 40(a)(ia) could not be applied to the appellant in this scenario, as the seller was responsible for making such deductions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2016 18:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 340 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329742</link>
      <description>The High Court of Calcutta allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was not liable to deduct tax at source on the freight component. The Court emphasized that the liability to deduct tax at source rested with the seller, who had acknowledged fulfilling this obligation. Therefore, the Court concluded that Section 40(a)(ia) could not be applied to the appellant in this scenario, as the seller was responsible for making such deductions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>