Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
The Court held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194H on the discounted price paid to franchisees/distributors, as they were not agents or commission recipients. The Supreme Court's decision in Bharti Airtel Limited's case, involving similar facts, was applied, wherein it was ruled that Section 194H was not attracted. Consequently, further adjudication was deemed unnecessary, and the question was answered in favor of the assessee against the revenue.
The Court held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194H on the discounted price paid to franchisees/distributors, as they were not agents or commission recipients. The Supreme Court's decision in Bharti Airtel Limited's case, involving similar facts, was applied, wherein it was ruled that Section 194H was not attracted. Consequently, further adjudication was deemed unnecessary, and the question was answered in favor of the assessee against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
