<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Adhoc 30% disallowance of referral commissions set aside; payments treated as sales promotion, not insurance commissions under s.194D; s.40(a)(ia) relief</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92877</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, holding the assessing officer&#039;s adhoc 30% disallowance of referral commissions unsustainable for lack of evidentiary basis and rational nexus; documentary evidence and statutory summons responses established payment to 14 individuals. Further, the Tribunal held payments constituted sales promotion/referral expenses and were not insurance commissions within section 194D, as the payees were not insurer-appointed agents and no principal-agent relationship with insurers existed. At most the payments could fall under sections 194H or 194C, but deduction obligations did not arise given the payer&#039;s status and receipts below statutory thresholds. Consequently, disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Adhoc 30% disallowance of referral commissions set aside; payments treated as sales promotion, not insurance commissions under s.194D; s.40(a)(ia) relief</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92877</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, holding the assessing officer&#039;s adhoc 30% disallowance of referral commissions unsustainable for lack of evidentiary basis and rational nexus; documentary evidence and statutory summons responses established payment to 14 individuals. Further, the Tribunal held payments constituted sales promotion/referral expenses and were not insurance commissions within section 194D, as the payees were not insurer-appointed agents and no principal-agent relationship with insurers existed. At most the payments could fall under sections 194H or 194C, but deduction obligations did not arise given the payer&#039;s status and receipts below statutory thresholds. Consequently, disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) were set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>