https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397734 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee against the revenue in a case involving the justification of not canceling the order under Section 263, the retrospective effect of Section 40(a)(ia) as amended by the Finance Act, 2010, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct and remit tax on contract and professional charges within the due date. The High Court disposed of the appeal by answering the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee, considering legal precedents and arguments presented. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Aug 2020 11:59:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397734 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee against the revenue in a case involving the justification of not canceling the order under Section 263, the retrospective effect of Section 40(a)(ia) as amended by the Finance Act, 2010, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct and remit tax on contract and professional charges within the due date. The High Court disposed of the appeal by answering the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee, considering legal precedents and arguments presented. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397734