https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338136 Document discusses two income-tax disallowance provisions. For labour and subcontract payments, it states that where records showed routing through site in-charges, individual payments were below the tax-deduction threshold, and no adverse material emerged in remand, section 40(a)(ia) disallowance was not supportable on the basis of a presumed section 194C breach. For cash purchases, it explains that supported bills, supplier acknowledgements, remote work sites, and individual bills below the prescribed limit indicated genuine business expenditure, so section 40A(3) disallowance and enhancement were not justified merely on suspicion or anti-splitting concerns. The discussion emphasises documentary proof, genuineness of expenditure, and threshold-based application of the provisions. en-us Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:08:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338136 Document discusses two income-tax disallowance provisions. For labour and subcontract payments, it states that where records showed routing through site in-charges, individual payments were below the tax-deduction threshold, and no adverse material emerged in remand, section 40(a)(ia) disallowance was not supportable on the basis of a presumed section 194C breach. For cash purchases, it explains that supported bills, supplier acknowledgements, remote work sites, and individual bills below the prescribed limit indicated genuine business expenditure, so section 40A(3) disallowance and enhancement were not justified merely on suspicion or anti-splitting concerns. The discussion emphasises documentary proof, genuineness of expenditure, and threshold-based application of the provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338136