9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1717 - AT - Income TaxFBT - Claim of the assessee towards fringe benefit expended for the purpose of levy of FBT - Held that - ITAT passed in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd. (2018 (6) TMI 1520 - ITAT AHMEDABAD) and GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM Ltd. (2013 (10) TMI 1502 - ITAT AHMEDABAD), we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the value of fringe benefit expended by the assessee for the purpose of levy of FBT. Counsel himself admitted that there is no merit in this appeal. Therefore, it is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Dispute over the valuation of Fringe Benefits 2. Charging of interest under section 115WJ of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Analysis: 1. Dispute over the valuation of Fringe Benefits: The assessee appealed against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-I, Baroda regarding the assessment year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal included disagreement with the total value of Fringe Benefits confirmed at ?74,16,789 as opposed to the Nil amount offered by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the issue was similar to a previous case, Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn Ltd. Vs. DCIT, where the claim towards fringe benefits was dismissed. Despite the assessee declaring NIL fringe benefits, the audit report revealed a value of ?74,16,789. The AO concluded that the assessee had indeed expended fringe benefits based on the auditor's report and levied fringe benefit tax. The ld.CIT(A) upheld this decision, referring to a previous order in the assessee's case for the Asstt.Year 2007-08. The Tribunal affirmed the ld.CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the value of fringe benefits was rightly confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. 2. Charging of interest under section 115WJ: One of the grounds of appeal was the charging of interest under section 115WJ of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal did not provide specific details or analysis related to this issue in the judgment. It can be inferred that this ground was not discussed in detail, and the decision on this aspect was likely based on the overall confirmation of the fringe benefit valuation. 3. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(d): Another ground of appeal contested the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for alleged concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld.CIT(A) referred to the AR's submission, noting a lack of explanation on why the fringe benefit was not chargeable to tax. The AR failed to provide evidence that the business expenditures were solely related to non-employees and did not benefit employees. The AO's findings were not rebutted during the appellate proceedings, and the ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue separately but dismissed the appeal, indicating that the penalty proceedings were upheld along with the valuation of fringe benefits. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the valuation of fringe benefits, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment did not provide specific details on the charging of interest under section 115WJ, suggesting that it was likely a consequential aspect of the overall decision on the valuation of fringe benefits.
|
