{"id":45884,"date":"2024-09-08T17:35:31","date_gmt":"2024-09-08T12:05:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/maruti-subray-patil-v-cit-2024461-itr-86-298-taxman-2-sc-editorial-cit-v-maruti-subray-patil-2016-383-itr-504-karnhc\/"},"modified":"2024-09-08T17:35:31","modified_gmt":"2024-09-08T12:05:31","slug":"maruti-subray-patil-v-cit-2024461-itr-86-298-taxman-2-sc-editorial-cit-v-maruti-subray-patil-2016-383-itr-504-karnhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/maruti-subray-patil-v-cit-2024461-itr-86-298-taxman-2-sc-editorial-cit-v-maruti-subray-patil-2016-383-itr-504-karnhc\/","title":{"rendered":"Maruti Subray Patil v. CIT (2024)461 ITR 86 \/298 Taxman 2 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Maruti Subray Patil (2016) 383 ITR 504 (Karn)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee is\u00a0 in the business of transportation. It made an aggregate payment in excess of Rs. 50,000 in a single assessment year towards freight charges to various truck owners and operators without deducting tax at source on such payments as mandated under the provisions of section\u00a0194C\u00a0of the\u00a0Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessing authority disallowed certain amounts and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal however held that the disallowance was not justified. On appeal the High Court held that the disallowance was justified and that the Tribunal had erred in inferring that only where there was a sub-contract in writing the provisions of the Act can be invoked and in holding in favour of the assessee, when no evidence was placed before it. On a petition by the assessee SLP is granted. (AY.2005-06)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Freight charges-Payments to contractor- Excess of  Rs. 50,000 without deducting tax at source-No evidence to prove that there was no contract- High Court  held that disallowance is justified- Special leave granted.[S. 194C, Art. 136]   <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-bW4","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45884","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45884"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45884\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":45885,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45884\/revisions\/45885"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}