2011 (11) TMI 497 - AT - Income Tax

Fringe Benefit Tax fringe benefit deemed to be provided on expenditure made by employer on telephone, travel, conveyance, business promotion, club memberships, conference meetings etc. - Held that - FBT is attracted only in cases where benefits are enjoyed collectively by the employees and cannot be attributed to an individual employee. The deeming provisions of 115WB(2), applies only when the expenditure is in the nature of considered for employment. Thus, file is restored back to Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh with direction to apply the proposition of law as interpreted while determining the value of fringe benefit. Decided in favor of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of fringe benefit tax (FBT) on various expenditures.
2. Interpretation of provisions under sections 115WB(1) and 115WB(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Admissibility of additional evidence related to travel and telephone expense policies.
4. Consideration of club expenses and their applicability to FBT.
5. Decision on whether FBT is attracted when benefits are not collective in nature.
6. Bifurcation of expenditure between employees and non-employees for FBT assessment.
7. Exclusion of certain payments from FBT calculation.
8. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding FBT levied on telephone/fax expenses and conveyance expenses.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved cross-appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2006-07 concerning the assessment of FBT on various expenditures by a company in the life insurance business. The Assessing Officer had assessed the value of fringe benefits higher than the amount returned by the assessee, leading to disputes over the applicability of FBT on different expenses.

2. The main contention revolved around the interpretation of sections 115WB(1) and 115WB(2) of the Income Tax Act, which define "fringe benefits" and contain deeming provisions for certain expenditures provided by the employer to the employee. The Tribunal emphasized that FBT should only apply when the expenditure is a consideration for employment, and not for expenses incurred in the course of business that do not benefit the employees directly or indirectly.

3. The assessee sought to introduce additional evidence related to travel and telephone expense policies to support their claim that no benefit accrued to the employees. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue considering the collective nature of benefits for FBT assessment.

4. The Tribunal also addressed specific expenses like club membership fees and conference expenses, highlighting the need for clear segregation of expenditure between employees and non-employees for accurate FBT calculation. Payments made to certain associations were excluded from FBT calculation as they were not considered club membership fees.

5. The Tribunal emphasized that FBT should only be levied when benefits are collective in nature and cannot be attributed to individual employees. It stressed the importance of associating benefits with employment to categorize expenditure as resulting in fringe benefits.

6. The appeals raised by both the assessee and the Revenue were analyzed separately concerning FBT levied on telephone/fax expenses and conveyance expenses. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding these expenses, dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, providing detailed reasoning for each issue addressed in the judgment.