2012 (8) TMI 1024 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question in this case is whether the Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) should be added back to the net profit for the purpose of computing "book profit" under Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The legal framework revolves around Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, which deals with the computation of "book profit" for the purpose of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). Explanation 1 to Section 115JB specifies adjustments to the net profit for determining book profit, including the addition of income tax paid or payable. Section 2(43) defines "tax" to include FBT. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Vintage Distillers Ltd., which interpreted these provisions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The court agreed with the Tribunal's reliance on Vintage Distillers Ltd., which held that "income tax" under Explanation 1(a) of Section 115JB does not include FBT. The court emphasized that despite the definition of "tax" in Section 2(43) including FBT, the legislature did not amend Explanation 1(a) of Section 115JB to include FBT.

Key evidence and findings:

The court found that the definition of "tax" was amended to include FBT, but no corresponding amendment was made to Explanation 1(a) of Section 115JB. This indicated that "income tax" in this context does not encompass FBT.

Application of law to facts:

The court applied the interpretation from Vintage Distillers Ltd. to the facts of the case, concluding that FBT should not be added back to the net profit for computing book profit under Section 115JB.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The revenue argued that FBT should be added back as it is not a permissible deduction under Section 115JB, while the assessee contended that FBT is distinct from "income tax" and should not be added back. The court sided with the assessee, finding that the legislative intent was clear in not including FBT in the adjustments under Explanation 1(a).

Conclusions:

The court concluded that FBT does not fall under the term "income tax" for the purposes of Explanation 1(a) to Section 115JB, and thus, it should not be added back to the net profit for computing book profit.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

"The above discussion clearly proves that as per Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 115JB, payment or provision for 'FBT' is not required to be added back for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JB of the IT Act, 1961."

Core principles established:

The judgment establishes that FBT is not included in the term "income tax" for the purposes of adjustments to net profit under Explanation 1(a) to Section 115JB. The court emphasized the importance of legislative intent and the absence of an amendment to include FBT in this context.

Final determinations on each issue:

The court determined that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in adding back FBT to the net profit for computing book profit under Section 115JB. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was upheld.