https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469867 ITAT Cochin held that deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) was not available because the assessee had not filed the return within the prescribed time and had also failed to respond to section 148 notice; applying section 80A(5) and binding precedent, the claim was barred and rejected. On the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found no documentary support before any authority to show that TDS was not required or that the necessary declarations existed; in the absence of proof, the disallowance was sustained. The assessment as upheld in first appeal was therefore maintained in full. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 21:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469867 ITAT Cochin held that deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) was not available because the assessee had not filed the return within the prescribed time and had also failed to respond to section 148 notice; applying section 80A(5) and binding precedent, the claim was barred and rejected. On the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found no documentary support before any authority to show that TDS was not required or that the necessary declarations existed; in the absence of proof, the disallowance was sustained. The assessment as upheld in first appeal was therefore maintained in full. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469867