https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769559 ITAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the appellant-company on two key issues. First, the tribunal held that Section 194H TDS provisions were incorrectly applied as no principal-agent relationship existed between the company and retailer traders for sales incentives paid on behalf of principals. The consequent disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was therefore erroneous. Second, the AO wrongly concluded expenditure was non-genuine based solely on unserved notices under Section 133(6), despite the company providing relevant evidence. The tribunal noted the three-year gap between business operations (2007-08) and enquiries (2010), considering the temporary nature of retail licenses. The AO's finding of a tax avoidance scheme was deemed incorrect. en-us Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769559 ITAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the appellant-company on two key issues. First, the tribunal held that Section 194H TDS provisions were incorrectly applied as no principal-agent relationship existed between the company and retailer traders for sales incentives paid on behalf of principals. The consequent disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was therefore erroneous. Second, the AO wrongly concluded expenditure was non-genuine based solely on unserved notices under Section 133(6), despite the company providing relevant evidence. The tribunal noted the three-year gap between business operations (2007-08) and enquiries (2010), considering the temporary nature of retail licenses. The AO's finding of a tax avoidance scheme was deemed incorrect. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769559