<?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 (5) TMI 485 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395452</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision. It confirmed that the assessee was not liable under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act due to non-deduction of TDS under section 194H. The Tribunal found the relationship between the assessee and distributor to be principal to principal, not subject to TDS under section 194H. The matter was referred back to the Assessing Officer for bookkeeping verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2020 13:18:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 485 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395452</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision. It confirmed that the assessee was not liable under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act due to non-deduction of TDS under section 194H. The Tribunal found the relationship between the assessee and distributor to be principal to principal, not subject to TDS under section 194H. The matter was referred back to the Assessing Officer for bookkeeping verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>