https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424781 The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the contract was a composite one primarily for the supply of rolling stock with incidental services. The attempt to segregate the contract for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) purposes was deemed untenable. The work performed was considered ancillary to the supply of rolling stock and not classified as professional or technical services. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the contract as a composite supply contract with ancillary services. en-us Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jan 2023 14:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424781 The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the contract was a composite one primarily for the supply of rolling stock with incidental services. The attempt to segregate the contract for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) purposes was deemed untenable. The work performed was considered ancillary to the supply of rolling stock and not classified as professional or technical services. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the contract as a composite supply contract with ancillary services. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424781