https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311667 Where payments for construction work were made directly to the agency, the payer was required to deduct tax at source, and failure to do so could not be excused on the plea that the funds originated from the State Government. The revisionist did not produce supporting documents in remand proceedings to show that no deduction obligation arose, and the accountant admitted that tax was not deducted because the legal requirement was not understood. On those facts, the High Court upheld the penalty for non-deduction of tax deducted at source and rejected the revision. en-us Thu, 05 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 07 Jan 2024 21:01:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311667 Where payments for construction work were made directly to the agency, the payer was required to deduct tax at source, and failure to do so could not be excused on the plea that the funds originated from the State Government. The revisionist did not produce supporting documents in remand proceedings to show that no deduction obligation arose, and the accountant admitted that tax was not deducted because the legal requirement was not understood. On those facts, the High Court upheld the penalty for non-deduction of tax deducted at source and rejected the revision. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 05 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311667