2018 (4) TMI 1069 - HC - Income Tax

Computing the value of Fringe benefit for the purpose of FBT - marketing and support service charges considered for FBT - Held that - The intention of the FBT is to tax the collective benefits given to employees as a group where such benefits cannot be attributed to any single employee. Since such collective benefits, earlier, were neither taxed in the hands of employee nor in the hands of employer, the FBT was introduced. At the end it is to be summarized that the expenditure incurred is purely business expenditure and is not covered by any of the subsections of 115 WB. Accordingly the same is not liable to tax under FBT. This case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tata Consultancy Limited. 2015 (5) TMI 518 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) provisions under section 115 WD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of deeming fiction under subsection 2 of section 115 WD.
3. Determination of employer-employee relationship for FBT applicability.
4. Consideration of expenses on sales promotion including publicity under FBT.
5. Comparison with a previous judgment regarding FBT applicability.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the interpretation of FBT provisions under section 115 WD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent-assessee, engaged in software development, filed FBT return debiting marketing and support service charges to its parent company account. The Assessing Officer added 20% of these charges, which was challenged by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. The Authority found the expenditure as business expenditure not covered by section 115 WB, thus not liable for FBT.

2. The appellant argued that the expenses incurred by the respondent were on sales promotion, falling under clause (d) of subsection 2 of section 115 WD, making it taxable as a fringe benefit. The appellant referred to a previous judgment where expenses claimed for sales promotion were excluded from FBT calculation, emphasizing the need for an employer-employee relationship for FBT applicability.

3. The Division Bench considered the definition of fringe benefits and emphasized the legal requirement of an employer-employee relationship for FBT provisions to apply. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as the payments made to the parent company did not involve an employer-employee relationship, thus not invoking FBT provisions.

4. The Tribunal found that the expenses incurred were not on sales promotion but on technical personnel employed by the parent company in the USA. The Assessing Officer relied on deeming fiction under subsection 2 of section 115 WB, but no specific finding was made regarding expenses on sales promotion. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the expenditure was business-related and not covered by FBT provisions.

5. The case was compared with a previous judgment involving payments made for promotional activities, where an employer-employee relationship was crucial for FBT applicability. The Tribunal's and Commissioner's findings were upheld, with no substantial question of law identified, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of FBT provisions, emphasized the need for an employer-employee relationship for FBT applicability, and distinguished expenses on sales promotion from business-related expenditures under FBT calculations.