The payments made by the assessee towards AMC for pest control ...

Income Tax

August 23, 2017

The payments made by the assessee towards AMC for pest control did not involve any professional or technical services, but as definitely there was a contract of work, therefore, the assessee had rightly deducted tax at source u/s. 194C, and could not be brought within the sweep of Section 194J.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The payments made by the assessee towards AMC for pest control ...

Income Tax

August 23, 2017

You may also like:

TDS u/s 194J OR 194C - payment made to Chemtrol Engineers Ltd on account of AMC of mobile monitoring vans - section 194C is applicable in this case and not 194J - AT

TDS u/s 194C OR 194J - payment to the pest control agency - such a payment was not for any technical services provided by the agency.

Non deduction of TDS on payment for professional fees as towards directors salary - Unless employee employer relationship exists, no TDS u/s 194J before 1.7.2012 - AT

TDS u/s 195 - payments made to non-residents for professional fees - assessee was having option of choosing more favourable provisions of the DTAAs.

Financial lease - principal payments made towards financial lease - revenue or capital expenditure - assessee is not entitled to deduction of payment of principal amount...

Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - 20% of the expenditure made in cash - payment made towards advance - decided in favor of assessee - AT

Disallowance of payment of professional fee to the directors - allegation of paying excessive remuneration to the directors - services provided by the directors towards...

Acquisition of brand - Payment made for Legal and professional fees – expenditure were in the nature of revenue and could not be disallowed as capital expenditure - AT

Agriculture Produce Market Committee (AMC) not entitled to exemption under section 10(20) - HC

Payment towards membership of OTC (Delhi stock exchange) - nature of expenditure - provision made for doubtful advance for membership - Assessee failed to prove its case...

Quick Updates: