Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreBCAJ Brieficles are short-format, web-only articles on contemporary topics of professional importance that are open-for-all to read & share.
Explore BrieficlesExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreMonthly mouth-piece of BCAS, the BCA Journal is a leading publication that has been in continuous circulation for more than 53 years. Over the years the BCAJ has become synonymous with high-quality & authentic content across fields of finance, accounting, tax & regulatory matters. The BCAJ has wide circulation across India & commands huge respect amongst the Chartered Accountants` community.
Learn MoreFor queries, collaborations, and insights to forge, Drop a line, share thoughts, inquiries galore, At BCAJ, your messages, we eagerly explore.
Learn MoreFor the A. Y. 2008-09, the
Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not deduct tax at source from the
payments made on account of administrative expenses which was paid by the joint
venture to the Indian company. According to the Assessing Officer section
40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity
referred to as the “Act”) was applicable and he disallowed the
expenditure.
The Tribunal held that it did not
find any reason to sustain the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) as the payments made
by the assessee to the co-venturer were only on account of salary and related
expenses.
On appeal by the Revenue, the
Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“Once the Assessing Officer had
checked the debit notes raised by the co-venturer and they were test checked
and the amount of expenditure claimed by the assessee was verified and its
genuineness had been proved, there was no reason to interfere with the findings
of fact recorded by the Tribunal in its order.”