<?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>2021 (10) TMI 1114 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414062</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision, ruling that the respondent was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194H of the IT Act. The court found that the relationship with the collection centers was Principal to Principal, where no payments were made by the respondent to trigger the TDS requirement. The court dismissed both appeals, stating they lacked merit and declined to award costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2021 09:22:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=659595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 1114 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414062</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision, ruling that the respondent was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194H of the IT Act. The court found that the relationship with the collection centers was Principal to Principal, where no payments were made by the respondent to trigger the TDS requirement. The court dismissed both appeals, stating they lacked merit and declined to award costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>