<?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>2026 (9) TMI 851 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798825</link>
    <description>Non-deduction of tax at source on leave fare concession reimbursements involving foreign travel did not render the bank an assessee in default where payments were made under a binding interim order restraining tax deduction. Although foreign travel was not eligible for the relevant exemption, the interim protection treated the reimbursements as not constituting income for withholding purposes and left employees to bear any eventual tax consequences. The bank was required to comply with that order and risked contempt for non-compliance. Its later vacation and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling did not retrospectively create default liability for payments made while the protection subsisted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:41:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=922541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 851 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798825</link>
      <description>Non-deduction of tax at source on leave fare concession reimbursements involving foreign travel did not render the bank an assessee in default where payments were made under a binding interim order restraining tax deduction. Although foreign travel was not eligible for the relevant exemption, the interim protection treated the reimbursements as not constituting income for withholding purposes and left employees to bear any eventual tax consequences. The bank was required to comply with that order and risked contempt for non-compliance. Its later vacation and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling did not retrospectively create default liability for payments made while the protection subsisted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>