BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

184 results for “TDS”+ Section 194C(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai674Delhi630Kolkata434Bangalore284Chennai184Ahmedabad144Jaipur114Hyderabad89Cochin75Chandigarh62Pune58Indore55Karnataka50Raipur49Cuttack48Visakhapatnam45Rajkot42Nagpur40Amritsar30Jodhpur24Surat22Patna18Panaji18Jabalpur16Lucknow16Allahabad15Ranchi14Guwahati14Agra8Kerala8Telangana7Calcutta5SC5Dehradun4Varanasi3Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 40157Section 194C76TDS67Disallowance66Section 143(3)55Deduction54Addition to Income53Section 26334Section 20126Section 194J

VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1937/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 194CSection 194HSection 2Section 250Section 253(1)Section 30Section 40

Showing 1–20 of 184 · Page 1 of 10

...
19
Condonation of Delay16
Section 13914

Section 194C are applicable on entire payment made to the contractor. Also, held that it does not matter whether the appellant paid this amount to the Government on behalf of Job workers since the employees are employed in contractual capacity as these were hired by the contractor. Also, it is held that Act specifies no exemptions for such payments made

GOPINATHAN,CUMBUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THENI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 25/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Gopinathan, The Income Tax Officer, No. 37/4, L.F. Road, Opp. To Vs. Ward 1, Government Hospital, Cumbum, Theni. Theni District 625 516. [Pan:Ardpg2494G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Gopalan (Irs) Ret. Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 12.11.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹. 4,66,455/- On Account Of Alleged Infringement Of Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Also Challenged The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act On The Pretext

For Appellant: Shri G. Gopalan (IRS) Ret. JCITFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

5,48,759/-, the assessee has paid lorry freight & cooly through Shri Abdul Rahman to the extent of ₹.4,68,000/- (₹.1,55,000/-), on dated 16.09.2011 15.12.2011 & 18.01.2012 (₹.1,56,500/- each), which are liable to be disallowed since the assessee has not deducted TDS as prescribed under section 194C

G.VANAJA,NAGERCOIL vs. ITO WARD-5, NAGERCOIL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 413/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 413/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 194CSection 40

5,05,756/- towards clearing and forwarding expenses. The assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 6,43,294/- to M/s. Surya Logistics and Rs. 31,56,804/- to M/s. SK Logistics. The assessee did not deduct TDS as per provisions of section 194C

ACIT, VELLORE vs. KRAMSKI STAMPING AND MOLDING INDIA PVT LTD., VELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 305/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.305/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Kramski Stamping & Income Tax, Molding India Pvt.Ltd Circle -1, Eraiyankadu Village, Anaicut Vellore. Block,Via Vrinchipuram, Vellore-632 104. Pan:Aadck3119L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 194CSection 40a

TDS under section 194C of the Act, by holding 5 that impugned payment does not come under the purview of the provisions

M/S. JENIRICH AGRO PRODUCTS P. LTD.,,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1 , , TUTICORIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2631/Chny/2019 "नधा%रणवष%/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Bharath, CITFor Respondent: 31.03.2021
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 263Section 40

TDS. The assessee has submitted before the ld PCIT that for this amount it has complied with the provisions of section 194C (6) by obtaining PAN from :- 3 -: the transporters which has been furnished to the AO. On due satisfaction, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee’s claim and completed the assessment. In this regard, the assessee relied on before

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/CHNY/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 754/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1415/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 377/CHNY/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2804/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1644/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1414/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 755/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

ITA 1790/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

TDS not Expenses Amount claimed deducted u/s. Interest paid to 53,18,606/- 194A financial Institutions Payment to other travels 1,06,20,450/- 194C Audit fee 1,34,677/- 194J Professional fee 67,000/- 194J Vehicle Maintenance 57,84,247/- 194C Expenses ITA Nos.1790 & 1791/Chny/2018 :- 5 -: Total 2,19,24,980/- 3.3 The AO show-caused assessee

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

ITA 1791/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

TDS not Expenses Amount claimed deducted u/s. Interest paid to 53,18,606/- 194A financial Institutions Payment to other travels 1,06,20,450/- 194C Audit fee 1,34,677/- 194J Professional fee 67,000/- 194J Vehicle Maintenance 57,84,247/- 194C Expenses ITA Nos.1790 & 1791/Chny/2018 :- 5 -: Total 2,19,24,980/- 3.3 The AO show-caused assessee

ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MALAR ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1417/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Malar Energy & Infrastructure Corporate Ward 4(1), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., No. 57, Pantheon Road, Chennai 600 034. Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aagcm5674F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition/Disallowance Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] With Respect To The Tds Default Under Section 194C & 194H Of The Act To ₹.7,29,898/- Instead Of ₹.3,03,28,445/- By Considering Fresh Evidence In Violation Of Rule 46A Of The It Rules.

For Appellant: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

TDS default under section 194C and 194H of the Act to ₹.7,29,898/- instead of ₹.3,03,28,445/- without obtaining any remand report from the Assessing Officer is in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file

RIGHT WAY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2915/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

TDS in terms of Section 194C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5

KRISHNAMURTHY SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3396/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3396/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Krishnamurthy Srinivasan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 1C, Vanagaram Road, Athipet, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 058. Chennai. [Pan:Bbkps4428J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Mohamed Mustafa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of ₹.75,66,470/- Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Mohamed Mustafa, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40Section 44A

TDS under section 194 of the Act for the expenses incurred towards contracts, professional charges and job work charges amounting to ₹.75,66,470/-. The assessee has not offered any explanation before the Assessing Officer. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has submitted as under: “During the course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer examined the various expenses

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ESKAY DESIGNS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 247/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 247/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Eskay Designs, No. 25, 1St Street, Cenotaph Road, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Vs. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaafe1480C] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 31.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Issue Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Rental Income Received By The Assessee On Sub-Letting Of Its Leased Out Properties Under The Head “Income From House Property” & The Second Issue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Allow The Expenses If They Are Paid As On 2

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate
Section 27Section 40

TDS under section 194 of the Act for the expenses incurred towards commission of ₹.66,500/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. By following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 in I.T.A. No. 1951/Mds/2012 dated 09.12.2013, the ld. CIT(A) directed

SIVA VALLI VILAS JEWELLERS PVT LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT PONDICHERRY CIRCLE, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3071/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3071/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S.Siva Valli Vilas Jewellers Pvt.Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 152, Kalatheeswaran Koil Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry- 605 001. Pondicherry Circle-6(2), Puducherry. Pan: Aarcs 2249B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G.Chandrababu, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 25.02.2021
Section 194CSection 40Section 4O

section 194C and thus, for non-deduction of TDS, the same needs to be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that there 8 can be no disallowance, where no payment