https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260462 Payments made under a composite contract were not hit by disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) where the purchase component attracted VAT, tax was deducted on the contract value in excess of the statutory requirement, the amount was fully paid during the year, and no balance remained outstanding at year-end; the disallowance was deleted. Dividend or interest paid to chit fund subscribers was also not disallowed for alleged non-deduction under section 194H, as the issue had already been decided in the assessee's favour in earlier proceedings. By contrast, the proportionate disallowance of collection-related expenses incurred on behalf of subsidiary companies was sustained on the basis of the assessee's own earlier year decision. en-us Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jun 2015 07:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260462 Payments made under a composite contract were not hit by disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) where the purchase component attracted VAT, tax was deducted on the contract value in excess of the statutory requirement, the amount was fully paid during the year, and no balance remained outstanding at year-end; the disallowance was deleted. Dividend or interest paid to chit fund subscribers was also not disallowed for alleged non-deduction under section 194H, as the issue had already been decided in the assessee's favour in earlier proceedings. By contrast, the proportionate disallowance of collection-related expenses incurred on behalf of subsidiary companies was sustained on the basis of the assessee's own earlier year decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260462