<?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>2013 (4) TMI 533 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=231285</link>
    <description>Freight and octroi payments routed through a transport contractor were treated as contractual transportation charges, not as isolated trip-wise reimbursements. The supporting lorry receipts showed that the assessee had entrusted transportation and clearing work to the contractor for the year, and the absence of a separate written or oral contract was not decisive. Because the payments aggregated beyond the statutory limit for the contractor and tax was not deducted at source, the conditions for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) were satisfied. The first appellate authority&#039;s deletion was therefore not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:23:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 533 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=231285</link>
      <description>Freight and octroi payments routed through a transport contractor were treated as contractual transportation charges, not as isolated trip-wise reimbursements. The supporting lorry receipts showed that the assessee had entrusted transportation and clearing work to the contractor for the year, and the absence of a separate written or oral contract was not decisive. Because the payments aggregated beyond the statutory limit for the contractor and tax was not deducted at source, the conditions for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) were satisfied. The first appellate authority&#039;s deletion was therefore not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=231285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>