https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63821 The Tribunal concluded that the contract between the appellant and BHEL was divisible, not composite. It directed the AO to exclude payments for machinery, spare parts, and related costs from TDS calculations. The AO must verify if BHEL paid tax on received amounts. If confirmed, the appellant should not be deemed an assessee-in-default. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63821 The Tribunal concluded that the contract between the appellant and BHEL was divisible, not composite. It directed the AO to exclude payments for machinery, spare parts, and related costs from TDS calculations. The AO must verify if BHEL paid tax on received amounts. If confirmed, the appellant should not be deemed an assessee-in-default. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63821