<?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>2019 (3) TMI 278 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376257</link>
    <description>Passenger Service Fee collected by an airline as a statutory levy and passed on to the airport authority was treated as a conduit receipt, not as payment for technical or professional services, so tax deduction at source under section 194J was held inapplicable and the airline could not be treated as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). Amounts retained by banks or credit card agencies from ticket sale proceeds were also held outside section 194H because the relationship was principal to principal, the retention represented payment-processing charges, and no agency relationship existed. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed and the relief to the assessee was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2019 16:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=561409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 278 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376257</link>
      <description>Passenger Service Fee collected by an airline as a statutory levy and passed on to the airport authority was treated as a conduit receipt, not as payment for technical or professional services, so tax deduction at source under section 194J was held inapplicable and the airline could not be treated as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). Amounts retained by banks or credit card agencies from ticket sale proceeds were also held outside section 194H because the relationship was principal to principal, the retention represented payment-processing charges, and no agency relationship existed. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed and the relief to the assessee was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>