<?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 (4) TMI 1165 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188692</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal on tax deduction for internet charges under section 194J and bank guarantee charges under section 194H. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of legal precedents and consistency in interpreting tax laws, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal in its entirety.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:42:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1165 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188692</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal on tax deduction for internet charges under section 194J and bank guarantee charges under section 194H. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of legal precedents and consistency in interpreting tax laws, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal in its entirety.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>