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. 13/2019-Central Tax, prescribe the due dates for furnishing of FORM GSTR-3B for the months of April, May and June, 2019.

Team Taxcharcha

Notification No. 23/2020-Central Tax – Extension of time limit of GSTR 1 for the state of J&K and Ladakh having turnover of more than Rs. 1.5 Crore for the period July 2019 to September 2019 till 24th March 2020

Team Taxcharcha

High Value Transactions – This is how IT Dept comes to know

Team Taxcharcha