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 issues explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2018 on 26.12.2018 – Circular no.8/2018 , CBDT

Team Taxcharcha

CBDT revising return forms to enable taxpayers avail benefits of timeline extension due to Covid-19

Team Taxcharcha

In terms of section 194A(1), The time of deduction of tax u/s 194A(1) is undisputedly time at which interest is to be credited to account of payee or when it is paid in cash/cheque or draft therefore, deduction of tax at source on interest income before close of financial year concerned as provided under section 194A(4) would not obligate assessee bank from penalty for not deducting tax at source at time of credit of said income in payee’s account – HC Allahabad

Team Taxcharcha