Case Law Details
Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Provisions of 2(22)(e) were not applicable since the payment was mere reimbursement of expenditure. 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.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY] 2014-15 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai, [in short referred to as `CIT(A)1, Appeal No. CIT(A)-53/IT-395/ACIT-18(3)/2018-19 dated 14/12/2018 on following grounds: –
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals was not justified in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs.1,21, 201/- (made by the Assessing Officer as Deemed Dividend) as the personal expenses of the appellant incurred by the Company disregarding the fact that the same were reimbursements received by the appellant from the company for expenses incurred by the appellant for and on behalf of the company which expenses were for the benefit of the company and not in the nature of personal expenses of the appellant.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
