<?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>2022 (7) TMI 748 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425193</link>
    <description>HC dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the ITAT&#039;s deletion of additions under s.40(a)(ia), holding that short deduction of TDS should be addressed under s.201 rather than disallowance under s.40(a)(ia). Concurrent factual findings favor the assessee on remuneration to a director: AO produced no material to justify a 50% disallowance under s.40A(2)(b), and the higher salary was accepted in a subsequent year&#039;s scrutiny assessment. No substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 17:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=685332" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 748 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425193</link>
      <description>HC dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the ITAT&#039;s deletion of additions under s.40(a)(ia), holding that short deduction of TDS should be addressed under s.201 rather than disallowance under s.40(a)(ia). Concurrent factual findings favor the assessee on remuneration to a director: AO produced no material to justify a 50% disallowance under s.40A(2)(b), and the higher salary was accepted in a subsequent year&#039;s scrutiny assessment. No substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>