<?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 (11) TMI 667 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334649</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 2,04,79,685. The Tribunal found that the payments made to labour sardars did not necessitate TDS deduction under Section 194C as there was no contract between the assessee and the labour sardars, distinguishing them from labour contractors. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming that the disallowance was not applicable, and the order was pronounced on 14.10.2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:34:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 667 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334649</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 2,04,79,685. The Tribunal found that the payments made to labour sardars did not necessitate TDS deduction under Section 194C as there was no contract between the assessee and the labour sardars, distinguishing them from labour contractors. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming that the disallowance was not applicable, and the order was pronounced on 14.10.2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>