https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397080 The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Section 194C was applicable as the appellant's hiring of trucks constituted sub-contracting. It held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) extended to both payable and paid amounts, emphasizing compliance with TDS obligations. The court ruled that the retrospective application of the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) was from the assessment year 2005-2006, rejecting the appellant's arguments. Justification for disallowing payments was upheld to enforce TDS compliance, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and underscoring the importance of adhering to tax regulations. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397080 The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Section 194C was applicable as the appellant's hiring of trucks constituted sub-contracting. It held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) extended to both payable and paid amounts, emphasizing compliance with TDS obligations. The court ruled that the retrospective application of the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) was from the assessment year 2005-2006, rejecting the appellant's arguments. Justification for disallowing payments was upheld to enforce TDS compliance, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and underscoring the importance of adhering to tax regulations. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397080