<?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 (7) TMI 190 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396521</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)&#039;s findings that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to pass orders under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. It was determined that the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS under Section 194A as individual interest payments did not exceed the threshold. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271C was canceled. The revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed, and the assessee&#039;s cross-objections were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 17:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 190 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396521</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)&#039;s findings that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to pass orders under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. It was determined that the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS under Section 194A as individual interest payments did not exceed the threshold. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271C was canceled. The revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed, and the assessee&#039;s cross-objections were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>