<?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>2024 (2) TMI 894 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449743</link>
    <description>External Development Charges were discussed in the context of whether tax was required to be withheld under Section 194-I, the characterisation of the payment, and whether an erroneous statutory reference in taxing orders could be cured. Following the Supreme Court&#039;s earlier order in BPTP Ltd., the special leave petitions were dismissed. The text does not set out any separate reasoning beyond the reference to the prior order and the dismissal outcome.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 894 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449743</link>
      <description>External Development Charges were discussed in the context of whether tax was required to be withheld under Section 194-I, the characterisation of the payment, and whether an erroneous statutory reference in taxing orders could be cured. Following the Supreme Court&#039;s earlier order in BPTP Ltd., the special leave petitions were dismissed. The text does not set out any separate reasoning beyond the reference to the prior order and the dismissal outcome.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>