{"id":48544,"date":"2024-12-01T09:47:46","date_gmt":"2024-12-01T04:17:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/ramesh-harbibhau-gawli-v-ito-2024-467-itr-161-sc-editorial-ramesh-harbibhau-gawli-v-ito-2024467-itr-9-bomhc\/"},"modified":"2024-12-01T09:47:46","modified_gmt":"2024-12-01T04:17:46","slug":"ramesh-harbibhau-gawli-v-ito-2024-467-itr-161-sc-editorial-ramesh-harbibhau-gawli-v-ito-2024467-itr-9-bomhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/ramesh-harbibhau-gawli-v-ito-2024-467-itr-161-sc-editorial-ramesh-harbibhau-gawli-v-ito-2024467-itr-9-bomhc\/","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024) 467 ITR 161 (SC) Editorial : Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024)467 ITR 9 (Bom)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Court held that expense were\u00a0 not connected to the work undertaken by the assessee and was bogus expense. As regards the additional ground that was raised, by a reasoned order, the Tribunal had considered it to a certain extent which covered the partly allowed claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) and taking into consideration the tax deducted at source deposited by the assessee. A reasoned order had been passed\u00a0 \u00a0disallowing the claim of the assessee. No substantial question of law. SLP of assessee is rejected.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0(AY. 2010-11)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Bogus expenses-Construction business-Payments made to Sub-contractors-TDS is deducted-Order of Tribunal  confirming the disallowance is affirmed-No substantial question of law-SLP of assessee is rejected. [Art. 136] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-cCY","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48544","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48544"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48544\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48545,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48544\/revisions\/48545"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}