9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 8297/M/2011 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2012 - Shri D. Manmohan And Shri D. Karunakara Rao,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Girija Dayal, CIT-DR For the Respondent : Shri Dinesh Vyas, AR ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM:- This is appeal filed by the Revenue on 8.12.2011 is against the order of CIT (A)-6, Mumbai dated 26.9.2011 for the assessment year 2008-2009. 2. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following grounds which read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT (A) erred in holding that expenses of Rs. 50.97 crore which are on account of sales promotion cannot be charged under FBT without appreciating that sales promotion expenses is to be included in the value of ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that when there is no direct or indirect benefit accrued to the employees of the assessee, the provisions of FBT cannot be invoked. In this case, brand promotion expenses were the subject matter and Tribunal granted relief to the assessee as per the contents of para 4 which reads as under: 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As per the settled law, FBT is leviable with regard to the payments that result in some benefit to the employees of the assessee. If the incurred expenditure does not benefit the employees collectively, provisions of FBT cannot be invoked. If on the touchstone of this principle case under consideration is tested it becomes clear that addition made by the AO to the value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions. 6. Further, we have also perused the other decision filed before us in the case of M/s. Tata Asset Management Ltd (supra) and para 12 is relevant in this regard for the similar proposition. For the sake of completeness of the order, the said para is reproduced as under: 12. We have heard the submissions of the Ld DR, who relied on the order of the AO. We are of the view that the reasons assigned by the CIT (A) are correct and do not call for any interference. We are of the view that the charge to fringe benefit tax is dependent on enjoyment of benefit collectively by the employees and this is totally missing in the present case of brand equity payment and hence cannot be subjected to FBT. Even the CBDT s Circular No.8, dated 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
