https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349926 A payment described as reimbursement was held liable to tax deduction at source where, on the facts, it was in substance consideration for deputed senior technical staff working on the assessee's projects, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was upheld. The claim that the recipient's memorandum did not cover manpower supply was treated as irrelevant. The second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) was recognised as a curative provision, and relief was directed to be examined if the assessee could show that the recipient had already returned the corresponding income, paid tax on it, and furnished the prescribed certificate. The matter was remitted for verification of those statutory conditions. en-us Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349926 A payment described as reimbursement was held liable to tax deduction at source where, on the facts, it was in substance consideration for deputed senior technical staff working on the assessee's projects, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was upheld. The claim that the recipient's memorandum did not cover manpower supply was treated as irrelevant. The second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) was recognised as a curative provision, and relief was directed to be examined if the assessee could show that the recipient had already returned the corresponding income, paid tax on it, and furnished the prescribed certificate. The matter was remitted for verification of those statutory conditions. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349926