https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198415 The appeal was allowed, and the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act was removed. The Tribunal held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, has retrospective effect. The decision emphasized that disallowance should not apply if the payee has already paid taxes, and the deductor is not in default for TDS. This ruling aimed to prevent unintended consequences in disallowing legitimate business expenditures, aligning with previous judgments and legislative intent. en-us Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 07:48:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198415 The appeal was allowed, and the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act was removed. The Tribunal held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, has retrospective effect. The decision emphasized that disallowance should not apply if the payee has already paid taxes, and the deductor is not in default for TDS. This ruling aimed to prevent unintended consequences in disallowing legitimate business expenditures, aligning with previous judgments and legislative intent. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198415