https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261367 Payments to a joint venture counterpart for use of premises and infrastructure were held not to be rent where the property was provided as part of genuine joint venture operations, so no tax was required to be deducted under section 194I. Wear allowance paid to employees was not exempt under section 10(14) because the allowance was not shown to be actually incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of duties, and in the absence of a dress code or supporting evidence it formed part of salary for tax deduction purposes. The joint venture-related issue was decided for the assessee, while the wear allowance issue was decided for the Revenue. en-us Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261367 Payments to a joint venture counterpart for use of premises and infrastructure were held not to be rent where the property was provided as part of genuine joint venture operations, so no tax was required to be deducted under section 194I. Wear allowance paid to employees was not exempt under section 10(14) because the allowance was not shown to be actually incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of duties, and in the absence of a dress code or supporting evidence it formed part of salary for tax deduction purposes. The joint venture-related issue was decided for the assessee, while the wear allowance issue was decided for the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261367