<?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>2018 (4) TMI 988 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358877</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and ruling in favor of the assessee. It determined that the payments made to the company were contractual, not professional fees, thus no TDS was required under section 194J. The interest levied under section 201(1A) was deemed invalid as there was no short deduction of TDS.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:57:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 988 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358877</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and ruling in favor of the assessee. It determined that the payments made to the company were contractual, not professional fees, thus no TDS was required under section 194J. The interest levied under section 201(1A) was deemed invalid as there was no short deduction of TDS.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>