<?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>2020 (1) TMI 48 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390435</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the revision order passed by the Pr.CIT under Section 263, restoring the original assessment order for the Assessment Year 2014-15. It was held that the incentives to dealers were discounts not subject to TDS under Section 194H, and the incentives to employees were part of salaries subject to TDS under Section 192. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing that inadequate inquiry is not a valid reason for revision under Section 263.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2020 17:41:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 48 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390435</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the revision order passed by the Pr.CIT under Section 263, restoring the original assessment order for the Assessment Year 2014-15. It was held that the incentives to dealers were discounts not subject to TDS under Section 194H, and the incentives to employees were part of salaries subject to TDS under Section 192. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing that inadequate inquiry is not a valid reason for revision under Section 263.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>