https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263162 The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee did not make direct commission payments to the main contractor. The main contractor received payments from the Government and then remitted the balance amount to the assessee after retaining a margin, which was considered a profit for subcontracting work, not commission. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, confirming the deletion of the addition by the Assessing Officer and emphasizing that the transaction did not fall under the purview of section 194H. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:48:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263162 The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee did not make direct commission payments to the main contractor. The main contractor received payments from the Government and then remitted the balance amount to the assessee after retaining a margin, which was considered a profit for subcontracting work, not commission. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, confirming the deletion of the addition by the Assessing Officer and emphasizing that the transaction did not fall under the purview of section 194H. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263162