https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238140 Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified where tax had been deducted under Chapter XVII-B and deposited in time, even though the Revenue contended that deduction should have been made under section 194J instead of section 194C. The Tribunal treated the underlying work as ancillary, non-technical activity such as computer job work, field inspection and collection-related tasks, and therefore not professional or technical services attracting section 194J. A bona fide dispute only about the correct TDS provision could not trigger section 40(a)(ia), which targets failure to deduct tax or failure to deposit deducted tax within time. The Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238140 Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified where tax had been deducted under Chapter XVII-B and deposited in time, even though the Revenue contended that deduction should have been made under section 194J instead of section 194C. The Tribunal treated the underlying work as ancillary, non-technical activity such as computer job work, field inspection and collection-related tasks, and therefore not professional or technical services attracting section 194J. A bona fide dispute only about the correct TDS provision could not trigger section 40(a)(ia), which targets failure to deduct tax or failure to deposit deducted tax within time. The Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238140