https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249020 The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower authorities' findings that the appellant's payments constituted sub-contracts under Section 194C(2), requiring tax deduction at source. The disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) was deemed justified. The court emphasized that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to both payable and paid amounts during the year. The appeal was rejected as it did not raise any significant legal questions, leading to its dismissal along with the pending application. en-us Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2015 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249020 The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower authorities' findings that the appellant's payments constituted sub-contracts under Section 194C(2), requiring tax deduction at source. The disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) was deemed justified. The court emphasized that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to both payable and paid amounts during the year. The appeal was rejected as it did not raise any significant legal questions, leading to its dismissal along with the pending application. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249020