https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19754 The court rejected preliminary objections regarding the enforceability of Section 194C and the locus standi of the petitioner, allowing the challenge under Article 226. It interpreted Section 194C to exclude payments to brokers, distinguishing between "work" and "service." Circulars extending Section 194C to brokers were deemed invalid, as the CBDT exceeded its authority. The court quashed the circulars, ruling that Section 194C does not apply to payments to brokers for services. The writ petition was allowed, and Circulars Nos. 666 and 681 were declared inapplicable to commission agents and brokers, with respondents restrained from enforcing them. en-us Wed, 28 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:06:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19754 The court rejected preliminary objections regarding the enforceability of Section 194C and the locus standi of the petitioner, allowing the challenge under Article 226. It interpreted Section 194C to exclude payments to brokers, distinguishing between "work" and "service." Circulars extending Section 194C to brokers were deemed invalid, as the CBDT exceeded its authority. The court quashed the circulars, ruling that Section 194C does not apply to payments to brokers for services. The writ petition was allowed, and Circulars Nos. 666 and 681 were declared inapplicable to commission agents and brokers, with respondents restrained from enforcing them. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19754