<?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>2018 (9) TMI 2088 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303750</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s order on all grounds. The Tribunal reiterated that reimbursement of expenses, including subscription and technology fees, rent for computers, and indemnity insurance, did not require tax deduction at the source. Citing precedents and consistency in decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the expenses were incurred exclusively for business purposes. The order was pronounced on 28.09.2018.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2022 20:12:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 2088 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303750</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s order on all grounds. The Tribunal reiterated that reimbursement of expenses, including subscription and technology fees, rent for computers, and indemnity insurance, did not require tax deduction at the source. Citing precedents and consistency in decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the expenses were incurred exclusively for business purposes. The order was pronounced on 28.09.2018.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>