<?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 (5) TMI 2219 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465426</link>
    <description>Discount allowed on transfer of prepaid SIM cards/talktime to distributors, being the differential between MRP and transfer price, was held not to constitute &quot;commission&quot; within s.194H because the distributor purchases the product on principal-to-principal basis; consequently, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS was deleted. Provision created towards asset restoration obligations for leased premises, though claimed as depreciation by treating it as part of asset cost and alternatively as deduction u/s 37(1), was governed by HC authority allowing relief on the alternative claim; since the quantum had not been verified, the matter was remanded to the AO to examine the claim in light of that ruling and to verify/deal with depreciation already claimed, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 15:58:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2219 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465426</link>
      <description>Discount allowed on transfer of prepaid SIM cards/talktime to distributors, being the differential between MRP and transfer price, was held not to constitute &quot;commission&quot; within s.194H because the distributor purchases the product on principal-to-principal basis; consequently, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS was deleted. Provision created towards asset restoration obligations for leased premises, though claimed as depreciation by treating it as part of asset cost and alternatively as deduction u/s 37(1), was governed by HC authority allowing relief on the alternative claim; since the quantum had not been verified, the matter was remanded to the AO to examine the claim in light of that ruling and to verify/deal with depreciation already claimed, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>