Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

205 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai542 Kolkata407 Delhi394 Chennai205 Bangalore193 Ahmedabad60 Hyderabad42 Indore36 Jaipur35 Raipur33 Rajkot30 Pune16 Karnataka15 Nagpur15 Amritsar14 Cuttack13 Cochin13 Surat13 Visakhapatnam12 Panaji12 Chandigarh11 Lucknow10 Allahabad9 Guwahati9 Ranchi7 Kerala7 Patna6 Dehradun4 Calcutta4 Jodhpur3 Agra3 SC3 Jabalpur1 Gauhati1 Telangana1 Uttarakhand1 Varanasi1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 4081 Section 194C62 Disallowance50 Section 143(1)49 TDS46 Addition to Income44 Section 143(3)43 Section 14841 Deduction37 Section 263

GRAND ARK LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 862/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 191C(6)Section 194C(6)Section 40

Section 194C(6) and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144B", "142", "40(a)(ia)", "191C

GOPINATHAN,CUMBUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THENI

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

Showing 1–20 of 205 · Page 1 of 11

...

25

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

disallowing same balance expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by holding that sub-section 6 and 7 to section 194C

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

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is permissible, even there is violation of the provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act.” In the assessee’s case also , it has complied with the provisions of section 194C(6

DCIT, MADURAI vs. SRI PARAMESWARI SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, ARUPPUKOTTAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for 12

ITA 1364/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1364/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sri Parameswari Spinning Income Tax, Mills Private Limited, Corporate Circle 2, 4A, Mill Premises, 38/39, Madurai. Great Cotton Road, Pandalgudi, Aruppukottai.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 14ASection 194(6)Section 194(7)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Sub Section (6) of Section 194C of the Act clearly say that

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2577/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

disallowance of Rs.35,000/- being the ROC fees in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification and went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in para 13 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. [7] The CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the applicability of the provisions of Section 194C

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2578/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

disallowance of Rs.35,000/- being the ROC fees in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification and went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in para 13 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. [7] The CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the applicability of the provisions of Section 194C

ALBERT & CO. P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1) , CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1618/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

disallowance of Rs.35,000/- being the ROC fees in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification and went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in para 13 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. [7] The CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the applicability of the provisions of Section 194C

M/S. ROYAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

In the result we find that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration, accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails and the same is dismissed

ITA 452/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:452/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Royal Impex, Dcit, New No. 77, Old No. 38, Vs. Central Circle – 2(4), Acharappan Street, Parrys, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaxfr-0248-N] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Jai V.Vairav, Ca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. Jai V.Vairav, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 37Section 40

disallowance of Rs.32,95,300 under Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of non-filing of Form 26Q u/s.194C(7), despite the appellant having fully complied with Section 194C(6

MURUGAN OIL CORPORATION,SALEM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), SALEM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1501/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.: 1501/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 80I

6 ITA No: 1501/Chny/2024 assessee to deduct TDS on sub-contract payments made towards transport charges and hence the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act was untenable in law. Further the Ld.AR stated that the assessee has complied with the provisions of section 194C

DCIT, MADURAI vs. POLYSPIN EXPORTS LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1890/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V Sri Krishnan, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

6) and 194C(7) of the Act are not independent and they have to be read together and the assessee has to file the From No. 26Q under the TDS provisions of section 194C(7) r.w.r. 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Whereas, the assessee has complied only one requisite condition of obtaining PAN No’s and :-3-: I.T.A

DCIT, MADURAI vs. ONTIME TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

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

ITA 91/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh.D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun KumarFor Respondent: Shri V. Jagadisan, CA

Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

6) & 194C(7) of the Act are independent sections. According to the Ld. representative, just because there was violation of Section 194C(7) of the Act, there cannot be any disallowance

ACIT, TIRUNELVELI vs. NEW SANTHA STORES, PALAYAMKOTTAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1161/CHNY/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1161/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. New Santha Stores, Income Tax, V. Cement Stockists, No.9, Circle – 1, Market Building, Tiruchendur Road, Tirunelveli Palayankottai, Tirunelveli – 627 002. Pan: Aacfn4870D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 74/Chny/2017 (In Ita No.1161/Chny/2017) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. New Santha Stores, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Cement Stockists, No.9, Circle – 1, Market Building, Tiruchendur Tirunelveli Road, Palayankottai, Tirunelveli – 627 002. Pan: Aacfn4870D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CIT

Section 194CSection 194ISection 40Section 40a

disallowances cannot be made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) also held that provisions of section 194C is not applicable to the impugned payments. The Revenue filed appeal against order of CIT(A) and the Tribunal has set aside the appeal to the file of the AO on the issue of applicability of provisions of section

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

disallowed a sum of Rs. 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, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1785/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A

Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

194C is mandatory and in case of assessee's failure to do so in respect of contractual payments, disallowance has to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) irrespective of fact as to whether assessee is following cash or mercantile system of accounting. 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had not submitted sufficient proof before

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1796/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A

Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

194C is mandatory and in case of assessee's failure to do so in respect of contractual payments, disallowance has to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) irrespective of fact as to whether assessee is following cash or mercantile system of accounting. 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had not submitted sufficient proof before

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1828/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A

Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

194C is mandatory and in case of assessee's failure to do so in respect of contractual payments, disallowance has to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) irrespective of fact as to whether assessee is following cash or mercantile system of accounting. 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had not submitted sufficient proof before

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

6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The Assessing Officer has noticed from the Form 3CD report furnished under section 44AB of the Act that the assessee has failed to deduct TDS under section 194 of the Act for the expenses incurred towards contracts, professional charges

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

disallowed the same. If the expenditure is incurred for the purpose of business, is made possible as obligation expenditure cannot be held as enduring benefit. 16. We have to see the nature of liability of net value of the payment and whether the expenditure is capital or revenue which is wholly and exclusively used for the purpose of business carried

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 512/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

disallowed the same. If the expenditure is incurred for the purpose of business, is made possible as obligation expenditure cannot be held as enduring benefit. 16. We have to see the nature of liability of net value of the payment and whether the expenditure is capital or revenue which is wholly and exclusively used for the purpose of business carried

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

194C of the Act and, therefore, he was liable to deduct tax at source from the payment of Rs. 20,97,689/-. On account of his failure to do so the said freight expenses were disallowed by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Against the order of the Assessing Officer