https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472025 Section 40(a)(ia) does not disallow expenditure merely because tax was deducted at a lower rate under a different TDS provision where the dispute concerns the characterisation of payments and no default finding exists under section 201. Any shortfall in tax deduction is addressed through default proceedings rather than expense disallowance. Rejection of audited books under section 145(3) requires specific defects establishing that the accounts are unreliable. Cash payments below the prescribed threshold and unavailable bills, when adequately explained and supported, do not alone justify rejecting accounts. Estimated net-profit additions require meaningful opportunity and must account for changed commercial arrangements affecting margins and indirect costs. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 27 Sep 2026 15:27:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472025 Section 40(a)(ia) does not disallow expenditure merely because tax was deducted at a lower rate under a different TDS provision where the dispute concerns the characterisation of payments and no default finding exists under section 201. Any shortfall in tax deduction is addressed through default proceedings rather than expense disallowance. Rejection of audited books under section 145(3) requires specific defects establishing that the accounts are unreliable. Cash payments below the prescribed threshold and unavailable bills, when adequately explained and supported, do not alone justify rejecting accounts. Estimated net-profit additions require meaningful opportunity and must account for changed commercial arrangements affecting margins and indirect costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472025