<?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 745 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330147</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the decision to delete the addition under section 40(a)(ia) as transportation charges did not necessitate tax deduction at source, and no contract between the assessee and the transporter was evidenced. The ITAT relied on a High Court precedent, dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal and affirming the Ld. CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 13:03:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 745 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330147</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the decision to delete the addition under section 40(a)(ia) as transportation charges did not necessitate tax deduction at source, and no contract between the assessee and the transporter was evidenced. The ITAT relied on a High Court precedent, dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal and affirming the Ld. CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>