<?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>2013 (9) TMI 1172 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191945</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in an appeal challenging the non-deduction of TDS and levy of interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2009-10. The dispute arose from a payment made by the assessee to MMRDA for additional FSI premium, which the Revenue deemed as rent requiring TDS deduction. However, the Tribunal held that such premium payments did not constitute rent under section 194-I, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal and negation of the interest levy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 May 2017 17:24:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 1172 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191945</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in an appeal challenging the non-deduction of TDS and levy of interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2009-10. The dispute arose from a payment made by the assessee to MMRDA for additional FSI premium, which the Revenue deemed as rent requiring TDS deduction. However, the Tribunal held that such premium payments did not constitute rent under section 194-I, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal and negation of the interest levy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191945</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>