<?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>2019 (4) TMI 2189 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465493</link>
    <description>Distributors were found to act on a principal-to-principal basis because title in the goods passed to them with the attendant risks and rewards, and the occasional acceptance of expired goods with refund did not change the essential nature of the arrangement. The transactions were treated as sales of goods rather than an agency relationship, so the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194H.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 18:00:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 2189 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465493</link>
      <description>Distributors were found to act on a principal-to-principal basis because title in the goods passed to them with the attendant risks and rewards, and the occasional acceptance of expired goods with refund did not change the essential nature of the arrangement. The transactions were treated as sales of goods rather than an agency relationship, so the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194H.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>