https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95844 Interest paid under s.201(1A) for delayed TDS remittance was held not compensatory and hence not deductible as business expenditure under s.37(1), following binding precedent; the disallowance was sustained. Payments to a foreign expert were held to exhibit employer-employee attributes; GST treatment was irrelevant, and the amounts were treated as salary requiring TDS under s.192, so disallowance under s.40(a)(i) for non-deduction was upheld. Disallowance of head-office staff reimbursements under s.44DA lacked a clear adjudication and was remitted to the AO for fresh decision with opportunity of hearing. Bank/performance guarantee charges were not "commission or brokerage" absent a principal-agent relationship, so disallowance under s.40(a) was deleted. Challenge to mere initiation of penalty under s.270A was held non-maintainable. - ITAT en-us Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:29:59 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:29:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95844 Interest paid under s.201(1A) for delayed TDS remittance was held not compensatory and hence not deductible as business expenditure under s.37(1), following binding precedent; the disallowance was sustained. Payments to a foreign expert were held to exhibit employer-employee attributes; GST treatment was irrelevant, and the amounts were treated as salary requiring TDS under s.192, so disallowance under s.40(a)(i) for non-deduction was upheld. Disallowance of head-office staff reimbursements under s.44DA lacked a clear adjudication and was remitted to the AO for fresh decision with opportunity of hearing. Bank/performance guarantee charges were not "commission or brokerage" absent a principal-agent relationship, so disallowance under s.40(a) was deleted. Challenge to mere initiation of penalty under s.270A was held non-maintainable. - ITAT Highlights Income Tax Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:29:59 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95844