https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191133 Payments made by a sugar factory for harvesting and transport, where the amounts were recovered from cane price and the factory acted only as an intermediary for growers, did not create a contractor-contractee relationship with the assessee. On those facts, tax deduction at source under section 194C or section 194H was not attracted in the assessee's hands, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be sustained. Bakshish paid to harvesting labour was treated as a customary business payment, not a contractual payment, and the prior period harvesting expense also did not establish a separate TDS default. The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was therefore not applicable. en-us Mon, 02 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:11:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191133 Payments made by a sugar factory for harvesting and transport, where the amounts were recovered from cane price and the factory acted only as an intermediary for growers, did not create a contractor-contractee relationship with the assessee. On those facts, tax deduction at source under section 194C or section 194H was not attracted in the assessee's hands, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be sustained. Bakshish paid to harvesting labour was treated as a customary business payment, not a contractual payment, and the prior period harvesting expense also did not establish a separate TDS default. The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was therefore not applicable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191133