<?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 (9) TMI 370 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347613</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the payments to Full Time Consultants (FTCs) were rightly subjected to TDS under section 194J and not under section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the real intention was to appoint consultants and not create an employer-employee relationship. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, concluding that the assessee was not in default under section 201(1) and 201(1A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:02:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 370 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347613</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the payments to Full Time Consultants (FTCs) were rightly subjected to TDS under section 194J and not under section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the real intention was to appoint consultants and not create an employer-employee relationship. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, concluding that the assessee was not in default under section 201(1) and 201(1A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347613</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>