<?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>2025 (3) TMI 144 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766759</link>
    <description>Tax collection at source under section 206C(1C) was analysed with reference to whether compounding receipts from illegal mining, transport and storage amounted to a transfer of rights in the mine for business use. The expression &quot;transfer&quot; was read broadly, with section 2(47) and the phrase &quot;or otherwise&quot; construed to cover the recoveries; the assessee was treated as liable to collect tax and as an assessee in default for that component. For DMF and NMET contributions, liability depended on whether the assessee received the sums or leaseholders remitted them directly to the funds. The Tribunal accepted that direct remittance would exclude liability, but upheld verification-based directions and sustained the remaining findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:12:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 144 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766759</link>
      <description>Tax collection at source under section 206C(1C) was analysed with reference to whether compounding receipts from illegal mining, transport and storage amounted to a transfer of rights in the mine for business use. The expression &quot;transfer&quot; was read broadly, with section 2(47) and the phrase &quot;or otherwise&quot; construed to cover the recoveries; the assessee was treated as liable to collect tax and as an assessee in default for that component. For DMF and NMET contributions, liability depended on whether the assessee received the sums or leaseholders remitted them directly to the funds. The Tribunal accepted that direct remittance would exclude liability, but upheld verification-based directions and sustained the remaining findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766759</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>