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

CBDT Extends the due date for furnishing of report under section 286 (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – ​Circular 9 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018

Team Taxcharcha

Recommendations of 43rd GST Council Meeting held on 28th May 2021

Team Taxcharcha

ICAI represents CBDT to Extend ITR Filing Due Date from 31 July to 31 August 2018

Team Taxcharcha