https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84190 TDS u/s 194C was disallowed for 'Crew Wages Expenses' u/s 40(a)(ia) by the AO, considering the assessee as a sub-contractor required to deduct TDS. The assessee contended being a contractor in a principal-to-principal arrangement for providing crew, not covered under 194C contracts. The ITAT held that for 194C(2) applicability, conditions of the assessee being a contractor, entering into a sub-contract where the sub-contractor carries out part of the contractor's work, and payment for such work, must be satisfied. In this case, the assessee was solely responsible for execution, suggesting no transfer of contractual responsibility to crew as sub-contractors. Absence of such sub-contract rendered 194C and consequently 40(a)(ia) incorrectly invoked. The ITAT allowed the ground, relying on Prashant H. Shah. en-us Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:53:50 +0530 Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:53:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84190 TDS u/s 194C was disallowed for 'Crew Wages Expenses' u/s 40(a)(ia) by the AO, considering the assessee as a sub-contractor required to deduct TDS. The assessee contended being a contractor in a principal-to-principal arrangement for providing crew, not covered under 194C contracts. The ITAT held that for 194C(2) applicability, conditions of the assessee being a contractor, entering into a sub-contract where the sub-contractor carries out part of the contractor's work, and payment for such work, must be satisfied. In this case, the assessee was solely responsible for execution, suggesting no transfer of contractual responsibility to crew as sub-contractors. Absence of such sub-contract rendered 194C and consequently 40(a)(ia) incorrectly invoked. The ITAT allowed the ground, relying on Prashant H. Shah. Highlights Income Tax Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:53:50 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84190