<?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 1151 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292369</link>
    <description>Section 40(a)(ia) was held not to apply where tax was deducted at source, but at a short rate rather than being completely omitted. The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench rulings that the provision is triggered by non-deduction or a default in deduction, not by a mere short deduction of TDS on salary payments. On the facts, because tax had in fact been deducted, the disallowance could not be sustained and was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2020 20:17:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 1151 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292369</link>
      <description>Section 40(a)(ia) was held not to apply where tax was deducted at source, but at a short rate rather than being completely omitted. The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench rulings that the provision is triggered by non-deduction or a default in deduction, not by a mere short deduction of TDS on salary payments. On the facts, because tax had in fact been deducted, the disallowance could not be sustained and was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292369</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>