<?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>2025 (8) TMI 367 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776180</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai upheld the disallowance of 20% of vehicle expenses, including fuel and depreciation, and rejected the claim for commission payments. The assessee failed to prove the commission was paid wholly and exclusively for business purposes, with no agreement or evidence of services rendered. The alleged recipient denied receiving any commission, and mere banking transactions were insufficient proof. The tribunal relied on precedent emphasizing the need for factual determination of business expenditure. Additionally, miscellaneous expenses such as vehicle and telephone costs were disallowed due to lack of evidence excluding personal use, including absence of a vehicle logbook. The appellate order disallowing these expenses was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2025 08:19:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=841174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 367 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776180</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai upheld the disallowance of 20% of vehicle expenses, including fuel and depreciation, and rejected the claim for commission payments. The assessee failed to prove the commission was paid wholly and exclusively for business purposes, with no agreement or evidence of services rendered. The alleged recipient denied receiving any commission, and mere banking transactions were insufficient proof. The tribunal relied on precedent emphasizing the need for factual determination of business expenditure. Additionally, miscellaneous expenses such as vehicle and telephone costs were disallowed due to lack of evidence excluding personal use, including absence of a vehicle logbook. The appellate order disallowing these expenses was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>