https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285764 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the decision that the Joint Venture's revenue-sharing model did not amount to sub-contracting, hence Section 194C TDS was inapplicable. Consequently, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deemed unwarranted. The Tribunal's ruling aligned with precedents like Swapnali RDS Joint Venture, emphasizing the JV's role as a conduit for contract acquisition and revenue distribution, not engaging in sub-contracting. The JV's status as an Association of Persons was accepted, influencing the TDS applicability and disallowance decision. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jan 2020 08:34:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285764 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the decision that the Joint Venture's revenue-sharing model did not amount to sub-contracting, hence Section 194C TDS was inapplicable. Consequently, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deemed unwarranted. The Tribunal's ruling aligned with precedents like Swapnali RDS Joint Venture, emphasizing the JV's role as a conduit for contract acquisition and revenue distribution, not engaging in sub-contracting. The JV's status as an Association of Persons was accepted, influencing the TDS applicability and disallowance decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285764