https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256321 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unwarranted as the provisions of Section 194C(2) did not apply. The relationship between the firm and the partner was not that of a contractor and sub-contractor, and the partner had already paid tax on the income, eliminating the necessity for TDS deduction by the firm. Consequently, the appeal was granted, and the disallowance was ordered to be removed. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:43:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256321 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unwarranted as the provisions of Section 194C(2) did not apply. The relationship between the firm and the partner was not that of a contractor and sub-contractor, and the partner had already paid tax on the income, eliminating the necessity for TDS deduction by the firm. Consequently, the appeal was granted, and the disallowance was ordered to be removed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256321