<?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>High Court Waives Penalty u/s 271C Due to Ambiguity in TDS Deduction Rules, Sections 194-C vs. 194-I.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30631</link>
    <description>Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of tds - when the TDS had to be deducted the question whether TDS had to be deducted under Section 194-C or 194-I of the Act was not a settled one. This explains why the CBDT itself had to issue circulars clarifying the position. Even this Court was persuaded to again frame a question on the issue in its order dated 5th September 2005. - no penalty - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:16:16 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:16:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Waives Penalty u/s 271C Due to Ambiguity in TDS Deduction Rules, Sections 194-C vs. 194-I.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30631</link>
      <description>Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of tds - when the TDS had to be deducted the question whether TDS had to be deducted under Section 194-C or 194-I of the Act was not a settled one. This explains why the CBDT itself had to issue circulars clarifying the position. Even this Court was persuaded to again frame a question on the issue in its order dated 5th September 2005. - no penalty - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:16:16 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>