https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361132 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting both the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and the addition related to alleged bogus commission expenses. The Tribunal found that the assessee acted as an intermediary, with the commission payments being directly controlled and made by the mobile operator, not the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of section 194H were deemed inapplicable, leading to the removal of the disallowance. Additionally, as the payments in question were determined and made by the mobile operator, the Tribunal concluded that the addition of commission expenses by the AO was unwarranted. en-us Thu, 24 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 May 2018 12:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361132 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting both the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and the addition related to alleged bogus commission expenses. The Tribunal found that the assessee acted as an intermediary, with the commission payments being directly controlled and made by the mobile operator, not the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of section 194H were deemed inapplicable, leading to the removal of the disallowance. Additionally, as the payments in question were determined and made by the mobile operator, the Tribunal concluded that the addition of commission expenses by the AO was unwarranted. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361132