Court condones delay in filing appeals due to late original filing. Reimbursement included in taxable income under Section 44BB.

The court condoned the delay in filing Income Tax Appeals due to original appeals being filed late and subsequently refiled. Regarding the inclusion of reimbursement of actual expenses in taxable income under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, the court ruled against the appellant. It held that Section 44BB is comprehensive and does not exclude amounts received as reimbursement, rejecting the appellant's arguments based on Section 2(45) and Section 5(2). The court found the appeals meritless and dismissed them without costs.

---

---

Issues: Delay in filing Income Tax Appeals, Inclusion of reimbursement of actual expenses in taxable income under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing Income Tax Appeals:
The judgment addresses the delay of 715 days in filing Income Tax Appeal Nos. 50 of 2015 and 52 of 2015, and 323 days in filing Income Tax appeal No. 51 of 2015. The appellant explained that the delay was due to the original appeals being filed late, withdrawn with liberty to file fresh appeals, and subsequently refiled with the delay. The court, after hearing both parties, decided to condone the delay, allowing the Applications for condonation of delay.

2. Inclusion of Reimbursement of Actual Expenses in Taxable Income under Section 44BB:
The appeals in question arose from orders by the Tribunal not agreeing with the appellant's contention regarding the treatment of amounts received as reimbursement of actual expenses under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that such reimbursements should not be included in taxable income as they do not qualify as income under Section 2(45) or fall under the charging provision of Section 5(2). However, the court, referring to a previous judgment, held that Section 44BB is a comprehensive provision and does not exclude amounts received as reimbursement. It concluded that reliance on Section 2(45) or Section 5(2) cannot support the appellant's case. Therefore, the court found the appeals meritless and ruled against the appellant, dismissing the appeals without any costs.

---