2016 (2) TMI 1124 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal admitted on Question Nos. 4, 5 and 7. (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on expenses incurred on Salary of drivers/pilots in total disregard to the provision laid in clause (A) to (P) of sub section (2) of Section 15WB of the Income Tax Act? (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on expenses incurred on insurance premium for motor car/ aircraft by relying on the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case CIT v/s. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. 1993 (9) TMI 82 - KERALA High Court without appreciating the fact the same was rendered in connection with allowability of deduction u/s. 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 when Fringe Benefit Tax was not brought on Statute? (7) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on maintenance of accommodation not in the nature of guest house in total disregard to the provision laid in clause (A) to (P) of sub section (2) of Section 115WB of the Income Tax Act? .

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the value of Fringe Benefit declared by the assessee in its return?
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on certain expenses disregarding specific provisions of the Income Tax Act?
3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on certain expenses based on conjectures without supporting evidence?
4. Whether the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on certain expenses despite provisions laid out in the Income Tax Act?
5. Whether the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on certain expenses based on a previous court decision?
6. Whether the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on expenses incurred on preoperative expenses without proper evidence?
7. Whether the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on maintenance expenses not in the nature of a guest house?

Analysis:

Question 1:
The Appellant voluntarily filed its return of Fringe Benefit under Section 115(WD) of the Act, valuing the Fringe Benefit and offering tax on the expenses incurred. The Assessing Officer held that the tax is payable, and the CIT(A) did not allow the Respondent-Assessee to argue otherwise. However, the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's claim based on a previous court decision, allowing claims not made before the Assessing Officer. The Court upheld this decision, stating that the claim was not new and could be raised in appeal, dismissing the Revenue's contention.

Question 2:
The Tribunal granted relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on expenses incurred for nonemployees and gifts to nonemployees, following a previous decision. The Court upheld this decision, noting that no distinction was shown that would warrant a different view. Therefore, this question did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Question 3:
The Tribunal held that certain expenses like medical reimbursement and education facilities for employees are taxable in the hands of employees, not under Fringe Benefit Tax. The Court found no reason to dispute this and dismissed the question as it did not raise any substantial question of law.

Question 6:
The Revenue argued that there was no evidence to show that preoperative expenditure excluded from Fringe Benefit Tax was capital in nature. However, the Respondent had relied on a CBDT Circular, and the Tribunal found the expenses claimed as capital expenditure. As there was no dispute on this finding, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision.

Questions 4, 5, and 7 were admitted for further consideration, while the Court directed the Registry to inform the Tribunal about the order for necessary action.