https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236935 Payments by a joint venture to its constituents were treated as sub-contract payments attracting tax deduction at source under section 194C because the contract was awarded to the joint venture, the constituents had no separate contract with the contractee, and the assessee itself booked them as sub-contract expenditure. Delayed remittance of the deducted tax continued to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for the year in question, as the Finance Act 2010 amendment extending the deposit time was held not retrospective. The unexplained difference between Form 26AS receipts and the profit and loss account was also sustained because the assessee failed to reconcile the variance or produce supporting confirmation. en-us Mon, 31 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236935 Payments by a joint venture to its constituents were treated as sub-contract payments attracting tax deduction at source under section 194C because the contract was awarded to the joint venture, the constituents had no separate contract with the contractee, and the assessee itself booked them as sub-contract expenditure. Delayed remittance of the deducted tax continued to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for the year in question, as the Finance Act 2010 amendment extending the deposit time was held not retrospective. The unexplained difference between Form 26AS receipts and the profit and loss account was also sustained because the assessee failed to reconcile the variance or produce supporting confirmation. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 31 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236935