Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Provisions of IT Act are not applicable on mere reimbursement of business expenses of company MANU/IU/0376/2020 - (16 Mar 2020) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Vs. ACIT-18(3)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The assessee being resident individual was assessed for year under consideration under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act)on 28th November, 2016 wherein it was saddled with addition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of Act for Rs.1.21 Lacs. The reason to make the stated addition was the fact that the assessee held 22% shares of an entity namely M/s Piem Hotels Ltd. (PHL). It was noted that payment of Rs.1.21 Lacs was made by the said entity for Citibank Credit Card held by the Assessee. 
Therefore, it was alleged that, the company was making some kind of advances to the Assessee in the form of credit card balance, from which he was incurring the expenses. Accordingly, the said payment was treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of Act and added to the income of the Assessee. Before learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee was receiving salary and commission from M/s PHL. It was explained that most of the credit card expenses were paid for by the assessee himself from his own bank account except for certain items of expenses which were incurred by the assessee but paid by the said company. 
The Appellant submits that the nature of expenses clearly shows the same as being for the benefit of the business of the company and not in the nature of personal expenses and prays that the addition be deleted” As evident, the sole subject matter of appeal is addition of Rs.1.21 Lacs. 
These expenses were incurred for and on account of the company and were on account of renewal of membership of the Entrepreneurs organization, USA, covering case for Apple Ipad provided by the company to the assessee for official use and Matrix Card for international roaming mobile expenses during foreign travel for professional work. Therefore, it was submitted that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of Act were not applicable. 
The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of Act were not applicable since the payment was mere reimbursement of expenditure by M/s PHL. However, 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. The appeal stands allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Expenditure, Additions, Legality</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>