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

Notification No. 06/2019-Central Tax ,dt. 29-01-2019 – Seeks to amend notification No. 65/2017-Central Tax dated 15.11.2017 in view of bringing into effect the amendments (to align Special Category States with the explanation in section 22 of CGST Act, 2017) in the GST Acts

Team Taxcharcha

Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules 2019

Team Taxcharcha

Income tax Update – CBDT enlists 3 categories of persons not covered under the Angel tax provisions

Team Taxcharcha