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

Interest-free Loan from employer taxable as Perquisite: ITAT Mumbai

Team Taxcharcha

All about Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010

Team Taxcharcha

Notification No. 01/2019-Union Territory tax(rate), dt. 29-01-2019 – Seeks to rescind notification No. 8/2017-Union Territory Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 in view of bringing into effect the amendments (regarding RCM on supplies by unregistered persons) in the GST Acts

Team Taxcharcha