<?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 (9) TMI 330 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398211</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the revisionary order under Section 263 and ruling that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified as Section 194H did not apply. The AO&#039;s original assessment was deemed correct, as the turnover did not mandate TDS deductions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2020 11:14:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 330 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398211</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the revisionary order under Section 263 and ruling that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified as Section 194H did not apply. The AO&#039;s original assessment was deemed correct, as the turnover did not mandate TDS deductions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>