9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1180 - AT - Income TaxAddition made as fringe benefits u/s 115 WE(3) of the Act Various expenses made Held that - The break-up of expenses grouped under Event Management Expenditure account along with documentary evidences were furnished before the AO as well as the CIT (A) by the assessee -, the CIT (A)-LTU, after analysing the provisions of s. 115 WB (1), 115WB(1)(a) of the Act, was of the view that the nature of expenses claimed make it abundantly clear that such expenses were in the nature of entertainment liable to be treated as a deemed benefit u/s 115WB (2)(A) of the Act rather than as expenditure incurred towards conference liable to be taxed u/s 115WB(2)(C) of the Act - none of the expenses were incurred by the assessee to endure any benefit to the employees whatsoever - The entire expenses incurred by the assessee cannot be regarded as FB and, therefore, FBT is not chargeable on the sum - Therefore, the CIT (A) was not justified in invoking the provisions of s. 115 WB(2)(A) of the Act to bring the said sum of Rs.6.47 lakhs under the ambit of FBT. Addition made for staff training Held that - The authorities below have justified in their stand that the expenses as part of employee welfare u/s 115WB(2)(E) of the Act However, they have failed to appreciate that the expression of welfare in general parlance would mean the health, fortunes of a person or a group - they have failed to justify that the staff training falls within the sphere of employee welfare - The purpose of providing training to its employees by its employer was to perform their official duties efficiently which will definitely enhance the productivity thereby the ultimate beneficiary would be the employer in carrying on its business more effectively and not the employees - If the purpose of incurring the expenses was to protect the employer s business interest and not the welfare of the employees and, as such, it cannot be termed as employees welfare - These aspects have neither been considered by the AO nor by the CIT (A) - the comprehensive details of expenses incurred for the staff training have neither been furnished before the authorities below nor during the course of hearing before the Bench by the assessee to ascertain as to whether the assessee s claim that such expenses were not liable to FBT thus, the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided partly in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs.1,29,473/- towards event management expenses as taxable Fringe Benefits (FB). 2. Addition of Rs.6,87,089/- towards staff training expenses paid to Org. Indirect as taxable FB. 3. Addition of Rs.41,772/- towards staff training expenses paid to External faculties as taxable FB. 4. Addition of Rs.38,38,958/- towards staff training expenses paid to Org. Direct as taxable FB. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs.1,29,473/- towards Event Management Expenses: CIT (A) Findings: The CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs.1,29,473/- as deemed fringe benefit under Section 115WB(2)(A), classifying the expenses as "entertainment" rather than "conference." The CIT (A) referenced the Finance Minister's speech and CBDT Circular No.8/2005, which broadly defines "entertainment" to include expenses for exhibitions, performances, and sports events. The expenses were primarily for the inauguration of the Chennai Facility and a cricket match for employees, which were deemed collective benefits. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT (A), stating that the expenses incurred for the Chennai event, cricket match, and merger-related meetings were not for the benefit of employees and did not qualify as "entertainment" under Section 115WB(2)(A). The Tribunal noted that the expenses were business-related and not for employee welfare, thus not subject to FBT. Consequently, the addition of Rs.1,29,473/- was overturned. 2. Addition of Rs.6,87,089/- towards Staff Training Expenses (Org. Indirect): CIT (A) Findings: The CIT (A) upheld the addition, stating that staff training expenses fall under "employee welfare" as per Section 115WB(2)(E). The rationale was that these expenses provide a collective benefit to employees, even if they ultimately enhance productivity. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found that the purpose of staff training is to improve productivity, benefiting the employer rather than the employees directly. The Tribunal noted that the authorities did not thoroughly verify the nature of these expenses. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination, with instructions to the assessee to provide detailed documentation. 3. Addition of Rs.41,772/- towards Staff Training Expenses (External Faculties): CIT (A) Findings: Similar to the previous issue, the CIT (A) considered these expenses as part of "employee welfare" under Section 115WB(2)(E), justifying the addition. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal reiterated its stance that staff training expenses are primarily for the employer's benefit. It emphasized the need for detailed verification of the expenses to determine their exact nature. The issue was remanded to the AO for a thorough review, with the assessee required to furnish supporting evidence. 4. Addition of Rs.38,38,958/- towards Staff Training Expenses (Org. Direct): CIT (A) Findings: The CIT (A) upheld the addition, categorizing these expenses under "employee welfare" as per Section 115WB(2)(E), on the grounds that they collectively benefit employees. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal maintained that the primary beneficiary of staff training is the employer, not the employees. It highlighted the lack of detailed examination by the authorities and remanded the issue back to the AO for comprehensive verification. The assessee was directed to provide all relevant details and documentation. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. It overturned the addition of Rs.1,29,473/- for event management expenses and remanded the issues related to staff training expenses (Rs.6,87,089/-, Rs.41,772/-, and Rs.38,38,958/-) back to the AO for detailed verification, emphasizing the need for the assessee to provide thorough documentation.
|
