<?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 (5) TMI 229 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359665</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, determining that payment for installation services fell under Section 194C, not Section 194J. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the discounts given to distributors did not qualify as &#039;commission&#039; under Section 194H, absolving the assessee from TDS liability on these discounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518897" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 229 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359665</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, determining that payment for installation services fell under Section 194C, not Section 194J. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the discounts given to distributors did not qualify as &#039;commission&#039; under Section 194H, absolving the assessee from TDS liability on these discounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>