9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The submission made by Mrs. Gutgutia that the expenditure on account of fringe benefits has already been taken into account is not correct - once that is done 40% of the net profit and loss has to be worked out which shall be chargeable to tax - If that is done, the result would be that the agricultural income itself would become liable to tax, which is not permissible under sub-Section 1 of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act – Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 100 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2014 - Soumitra Pal And Arindam Sinha,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Das For the Respondents : Mr. P. K. Bhowmik Mr. Aniket Mitra ORDER The court : This Income Tax Appeal was admitted on the following questions : 1. Whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 310 ITR 392. We set out the relevant portion of the said judgement : We shall take assistance of the illustration to resolve the issue. Let us assume that the other expenses in illustration (a) amounting to ₹ 300/- include ₹ 100/- spent by the employer on account of fringe benefits made available to its employees. In that case, 40% of the aforesaid sum of ₹ 100/- would also be includible in illustration (b). Therefore, the question posed before us has really been answered by the illustration given by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. It cannot be disputed that the amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee in extending fringe benefits to its employees was not solely for the purpose of business. The expend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion was answered by Their Lordships in the negative. Before us, the question of double taxation has not arisen for consideration. The question formulated above is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Since the issue stands decided, the questions arising therefrom are answered as follows: Question no.1 is in the negative and in favour of the assessee; and Question no.3 is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. So far as question no.2 is concerned, as it arises out of the reasoning given in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on the issue decided, the same is redundant and need not be answered. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. Urgent certified copy of this order, if ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
