<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (5) TMI 48 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395015</link>
    <description>The ITAT dismissed the appeal on commission expenses due to lack of details provided by the assessee. The disallowance of travelling and vehicle expenses was reduced to Rs. 72,000 from Rs. 2,36,986 by the ITAT based on available evidence. The addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) was deleted by the ITAT due to adjustment entries in the ledger account, partially allowing the appeals. In a separate appeal for another assessment year, the ITAT upheld disallowance of Pre EMI interest and restricted overall expenses disallowance to 30%, while deleting the addition under section 2(22)(e) for one company but sustaining it for another due to lack of evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2020 08:56:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 48 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395015</link>
      <description>The ITAT dismissed the appeal on commission expenses due to lack of details provided by the assessee. The disallowance of travelling and vehicle expenses was reduced to Rs. 72,000 from Rs. 2,36,986 by the ITAT based on available evidence. The addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) was deleted by the ITAT due to adjustment entries in the ledger account, partially allowing the appeals. In a separate appeal for another assessment year, the ITAT upheld disallowance of Pre EMI interest and restricted overall expenses disallowance to 30%, while deleting the addition under section 2(22)(e) for one company but sustaining it for another due to lack of evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395015</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>