https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206808 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C, as it was determined that the payments to franchisees were part of a profit-sharing arrangement rather than a service contract. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of bonus payable to directors under Section 36(1)(ii), finding that the bonus was justified for services rendered. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for higher depreciation on computer peripherals and accessories and allowed the treatment of non-refundable deposit as income. The revenue's appeal on other grounds was partly allowed for statistical purposes, except for the disallowance of interest paid to NOIDA, which was dismissed based on precedent. en-us Mon, 27 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206808 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C, as it was determined that the payments to franchisees were part of a profit-sharing arrangement rather than a service contract. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of bonus payable to directors under Section 36(1)(ii), finding that the bonus was justified for services rendered. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for higher depreciation on computer peripherals and accessories and allowed the treatment of non-refundable deposit as income. The revenue's appeal on other grounds was partly allowed for statistical purposes, except for the disallowance of interest paid to NOIDA, which was dismissed based on precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206808