https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170769 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding the assessee liable to deduct tax under section 194-I instead of 194C. The Tribunal ruled that short deduction of tax at 2.06% instead of 10% under section 194-I does not warrant disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Emphasizing the distinction between sections 40(a)(ia) and 201(1A), the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that disallowance should not be proportionate to the shortfall in deduction. The judgment clarified the treatment of tax deduction and disallowance under the relevant sections, ultimately favoring the assessee based on legal interpretation and precedent. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:16:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170769 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding the assessee liable to deduct tax under section 194-I instead of 194C. The Tribunal ruled that short deduction of tax at 2.06% instead of 10% under section 194-I does not warrant disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Emphasizing the distinction between sections 40(a)(ia) and 201(1A), the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that disallowance should not be proportionate to the shortfall in deduction. The judgment clarified the treatment of tax deduction and disallowance under the relevant sections, ultimately favoring the assessee based on legal interpretation and precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170769