https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351171 Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was treated as requiring factual verification where the payees were said to have offered the income to tax and the payer was not regarded as an assessee in default under section 201(1); the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) was accepted as curative and retrospective, so the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify tax compliance by the recipients. The claim for carry forward and set-off of earlier years' loss was also found to need examination on merits because it had not been properly adjudicated, and it was likewise sent back for assessment-level verification. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:49:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351171 Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was treated as requiring factual verification where the payees were said to have offered the income to tax and the payer was not regarded as an assessee in default under section 201(1); the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) was accepted as curative and retrospective, so the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify tax compliance by the recipients. The claim for carry forward and set-off of earlier years' loss was also found to need examination on merits because it had not been properly adjudicated, and it was likewise sent back for assessment-level verification. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351171