<?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 (8) TMI 442 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776255</link>
    <description>The ITAT Bangalore allowed the appeal of a cinema theatre assessee against orders under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194H on convenience charges retained by an online ticketing platform. Relying on its earlier ruling, the Tribunal held that the convenience fee collected by the platform provider is for its own services and does not imply agency for theatre owners; thus, TDS u/s 194H is not applicable. The AO and CIT(A) failed to consider this precedent and dismissed the appeal without proper discussion. The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised invoices biweekly and no refund issue arose. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the default notices and ruled in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2025 07:04:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=841473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 442 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776255</link>
      <description>The ITAT Bangalore allowed the appeal of a cinema theatre assessee against orders under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194H on convenience charges retained by an online ticketing platform. Relying on its earlier ruling, the Tribunal held that the convenience fee collected by the platform provider is for its own services and does not imply agency for theatre owners; thus, TDS u/s 194H is not applicable. The AO and CIT(A) failed to consider this precedent and dismissed the appeal without proper discussion. The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised invoices biweekly and no refund issue arose. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the default notices and ruled in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>