https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310301 ITAT Delhi held that discount allowed to advertising agencies under a principal-to-principal arrangement was trade discount, not commission, so section 194H was not attracted and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not stand. It also held that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D must be confined to investments that actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year, and the restricted computation was upheld. The revenue's challenge failed on both issues, and relief to the assessee was affirmed. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2023 05:30:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310301 ITAT Delhi held that discount allowed to advertising agencies under a principal-to-principal arrangement was trade discount, not commission, so section 194H was not attracted and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not stand. It also held that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D must be confined to investments that actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year, and the restricted computation was upheld. The revenue's challenge failed on both issues, and relief to the assessee was affirmed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310301