https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176420 The appeal by the revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee, both relating to the assessment year 2009-10, challenged the deletion of disallowance under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer disallowed transportation charges without tax deduction, claiming the payee was a contractor. The assessee argued the payee was an employee. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on a decision by the Cochin Bench of ITAT to delete the addition. However, due to conflicting views of High Courts, the Tribunal set aside the decision and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The appeal and cross objection were treated as allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Fri, 07 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:17:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176420 The appeal by the revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee, both relating to the assessment year 2009-10, challenged the deletion of disallowance under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer disallowed transportation charges without tax deduction, claiming the payee was a contractor. The assessee argued the payee was an employee. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on a decision by the Cochin Bench of ITAT to delete the addition. However, due to conflicting views of High Courts, the Tribunal set aside the decision and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The appeal and cross objection were treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176420