<?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>2017 (10) TMI 1681 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469426</link>
    <description>Payments under contracts for design, fabrication, supply, installation, commissioning, repair, maintenance and dredging are treated as works contracts within section 194C where no professional or technical service is rendered and no technical know-how is made available to the payer; section 194J cannot be used as a residuary provision. Payments for tug, launch and car arrangements are not automatically rent under section 194-I when the substance of the arrangement is transport or port-support service rather than hiring of vehicles or machinery. The commentary notes that the first appellate orders were upheld and the Revenue&#039;s TDS challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 12:20:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1681 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469426</link>
      <description>Payments under contracts for design, fabrication, supply, installation, commissioning, repair, maintenance and dredging are treated as works contracts within section 194C where no professional or technical service is rendered and no technical know-how is made available to the payer; section 194J cannot be used as a residuary provision. Payments for tug, launch and car arrangements are not automatically rent under section 194-I when the substance of the arrangement is transport or port-support service rather than hiring of vehicles or machinery. The commentary notes that the first appellate orders were upheld and the Revenue&#039;s TDS challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>