https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788594 Cross-charges paid on a cost-to-cost basis under a cost-sharing arrangement, with no markup or profit element, were treated as reimbursement of expenditure rather than consideration for income-bearing services, so no tax deduction at source was required and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. The service tax charged on the transaction did not change its reimbursement character. In any event, where the payee had filed its return, included the amount, paid the due tax, and furnished the prescribed accountant's certificate, the beneficial and curative provisos to Sections 201(1) and 40(a)(ia) prevented the payer from being treated as an assessee in default, and disallowance could not be sustained. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788594 Cross-charges paid on a cost-to-cost basis under a cost-sharing arrangement, with no markup or profit element, were treated as reimbursement of expenditure rather than consideration for income-bearing services, so no tax deduction at source was required and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. The service tax charged on the transaction did not change its reimbursement character. In any event, where the payee had filed its return, included the amount, paid the due tax, and furnished the prescribed accountant's certificate, the beneficial and curative provisos to Sections 201(1) and 40(a)(ia) prevented the payer from being treated as an assessee in default, and disallowance could not be sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788594