<?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>2024 (5) TMI 1718 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471046</link>
    <description>Closure of proceedings for failure to deduct tax at source, after finding that overseas transactions were at arm&#039;s length and the assessee was not in default, removed the basis for disallowance of the related payments. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was therefore deleted. The Tribunal correctly applied binding jurisdictional precedent, as no contrary binding decision was identified, and the deletion was sustained in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 18:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1718 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471046</link>
      <description>Closure of proceedings for failure to deduct tax at source, after finding that overseas transactions were at arm&#039;s length and the assessee was not in default, removed the basis for disallowance of the related payments. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was therefore deleted. The Tribunal correctly applied binding jurisdictional precedent, as no contrary binding decision was identified, and the deletion was sustained in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>