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

Information Systems Audit – Assessment Test to be held on 9th July 2022

Team Taxcharcha

Notification No. 48/2019-Central tax – Extension of prescribed due date for GST returns in the state of Jammu & Kashmir

Team Taxcharcha

Circular No. 76/50/2018-GSTClarification on certain issues (sale by government departments to unregistered person; leviability of penalty under section 73(11) of the CGST Act; rate of tax in case of debit notes / credit notes issued under section 142(2) of the CGST Act; applicability of notification No. 50/2018-Central Tax; valuation methodology in case of TCS under Income Tax Act and definition of owner of goods) related to GST

Team Taxcharcha