9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit Tax (FBT). 2. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of generation, purchase, transmission and distribution of electricity. The return of income for the year under consideration was originally filed by the assessee on 3-9-2008 which was subsequently revised on 26-3-2010. In the revised return, the total value of fringe benefits was disclosed by the assessee at Rs. 11,03,26,722/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs. 16,52,12,628/- under the head "Brand Equity" which was claimed to be not liable for FBT. It was however noted by the A.O. that the said expenditure represented the payment made by the assessee to Tata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the assessee by the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Tata Motors Ltd., another group concern, rendered vide its order dtd. 23-11-2012 in ITA No. 8297/M/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 wherein a similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for the following reasons given in para No. 5 to 7 of its order :- "5. We have heard both the parties, perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the decisions filed before us. So far as the decision of the Tribunal In the case of H.V. Transmissions Limited vs. ACIT (supra) is concerned, we find para 4 is relevant for the proposition that when there is no direct or indirect benefit accrued to the employees of the assessee, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit has accrued to the employees of the appellant company. Therefore, in our opinion, FBT cannot be levied on brand promotion expenses. Cases relied upon by the AR also support the submissions made by him. Respectfully following the decisions delivered by the Bangalore and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the cases M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor P. Ltd. (supra), Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., (supra) and M/s. Tata Asset Management Ltd (supra), we decide all the three effective grounds of the appeal in favour of tile assessee-company. We find that issues under consideration have been decided in favour of the appellant by the said decisions." 6. Further, we have also perused the other decision filed before us in the case of M/s T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be brought under FBT provisions as they are not incurred by the employees of the company. Therefore, para 5.2 of the impugned order also justifies that the FBT cannot he levied except in respect of payments made for the beneficial to the employee directly or indirectly. In the present case, the expenditure being for the sales promotion, the same was spent for the direct or indirect benefit of the employees of the company. Therefore, the decision given by the CIT (A) in his order is fair and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed". 5. As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to that of the case of Tata Motors Ltd. (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
