<?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 148 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390535</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of section 194C(6) could not be retroactively applied to the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the disputed amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was directed to be deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2020 06:36:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 148 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390535</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of section 194C(6) could not be retroactively applied to the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the disputed amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was directed to be deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>