<?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>2015 (6) TMI 1209 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290674</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted for short deduction of TDS on labor charges. Citing a decision of the Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal clarified that disallowance applies only when tax was not deducted at source, not in cases of incorrect TDS provisions with shortfalls. The Tribunal found the CIT&#039;s revision proceedings invalid and quashed them, allowing the assessee&#039;s appeal based on the settled issue of short TDS deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2020 10:33:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=624640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 1209 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290674</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted for short deduction of TDS on labor charges. Citing a decision of the Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal clarified that disallowance applies only when tax was not deducted at source, not in cases of incorrect TDS provisions with shortfalls. The Tribunal found the CIT&#039;s revision proceedings invalid and quashed them, allowing the assessee&#039;s appeal based on the settled issue of short TDS deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>