Taxcharcha
Income TaxLatestRecent Case Laws

the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) were not applicable since the payment was mere reimbursement of expenditure by M/s PHL – ITAT Mumbai

M/S ADMACH AUTO LIMITED, ITA NO. 9543/DEL/2019

The provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) were not applicable since the payment was mere reimbursement of expenditure by M/s PHL. However, Ld. CIT(A) proceeded on wrong footing that the same would be personal expenditure and hence, disallowable completely overlooking the fact that the said expenditure has never been claimed by the assessee anywhere while computing his income.

The said expenditure was booked as  business expenditure by M/s PHL. Therefore, the impugned additions could not be sustained. By deleting the same,  ITAT allow the appeal.

Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal ITA no. 261
Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal ITA no. 261

Related posts

Circular no. 116/2019 – Levy of GST on the service of display of name or placing of name plates of the donor in the premises of charitable organisations receiving donation or gifts by individual donors

Team Taxcharcha

CBDT proposes to amend the rules for making the process of issue of certificate for no deduction or lower deduction electronically

Team Taxcharcha

Not passing a separate order for disposing off the objections of the assessee is a clear violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft – ITAT Delhi

Team Taxcharcha