https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220967 Section 40(a)(ia) was interpreted to apply only to expenditure remaining payable at year-end, because the word "payable" was given its ordinary and strict meaning. On that reading, amounts already paid during the year without deduction of tax at source were not covered by the disallowance provision. The factual position still required verification, however, because the record did not clearly show whether the January and February 2009 payments had been made before 31 March. The matter was therefore remitted for examination of whether the disputed sums were outstanding or had already been discharged. en-us Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 May 2013 18:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220967 Section 40(a)(ia) was interpreted to apply only to expenditure remaining payable at year-end, because the word "payable" was given its ordinary and strict meaning. On that reading, amounts already paid during the year without deduction of tax at source were not covered by the disallowance provision. The factual position still required verification, however, because the record did not clearly show whether the January and February 2009 payments had been made before 31 March. The matter was therefore remitted for examination of whether the disputed sums were outstanding or had already been discharged. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220967