<?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>2017 (2) TMI 798 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339098</link>
    <description>The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 80,000 on account of TDS, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. The tribunal held that the liability to pay TDS does not fall on the assessee when it has already been deducted by the licensee, emphasizing the responsibilities of the deductor in such cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:50:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 798 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339098</link>
      <description>The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 80,000 on account of TDS, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. The tribunal held that the liability to pay TDS does not fall on the assessee when it has already been deducted by the licensee, emphasizing the responsibilities of the deductor in such cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339098</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>