<?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 (11) TMI 1661 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282688</link>
    <description>Section 10(5) exemption for employees&#039; travel reimbursement is examined on whether it is confined to travel within India, and the tax deduction issue is considered on whether an assessee can be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201 for short deduction under Section 192. The Karnataka HC admitted the appeal to consider these substantial questions of law, without recording a substantive merits determination in the supplied text.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2022 16:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=584035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1661 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282688</link>
      <description>Section 10(5) exemption for employees&#039; travel reimbursement is examined on whether it is confined to travel within India, and the tax deduction issue is considered on whether an assessee can be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201 for short deduction under Section 192. The Karnataka HC admitted the appeal to consider these substantial questions of law, without recording a substantive merits determination in the supplied text.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>