<?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>2026 (1) TMI 352 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784596</link>
    <description>Interest paid under s.201(1A) for delayed remittance of TDS was held not deductible under s.37(1) because binding HC precedent treats such interest as not compensatory and hence not allowable; the disallowance was sustained. Payments to an overseas expert were found to bear attributes of an employer-employee relationship; GST treatment was held irrelevant for characterising income under the Act, so the amount was treated as salary requiring TDS under s.192, and for non-deduction the disallowance under s.40(a)(i) was upheld. Disallowance of head-office staff expense reimbursements under s.44DA lacked DRP adjudication, so it was set aside to the AO for fresh decision. Bank/performance guarantee charges were held not &quot;commission&quot; absent a principal-agent relationship, so s.194H did not apply and the s.40(a) disallowance was deleted. Challenge to initiation of penalty under s.270A was held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:22:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 352 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784596</link>
      <description>Interest paid under s.201(1A) for delayed remittance of TDS was held not deductible under s.37(1) because binding HC precedent treats such interest as not compensatory and hence not allowable; the disallowance was sustained. Payments to an overseas expert were found to bear attributes of an employer-employee relationship; GST treatment was held irrelevant for characterising income under the Act, so the amount was treated as salary requiring TDS under s.192, and for non-deduction the disallowance under s.40(a)(i) was upheld. Disallowance of head-office staff expense reimbursements under s.44DA lacked DRP adjudication, so it was set aside to the AO for fresh decision. Bank/performance guarantee charges were held not &quot;commission&quot; absent a principal-agent relationship, so s.194H did not apply and the s.40(a) disallowance was deleted. Challenge to initiation of penalty under s.270A was held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>