9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing questions : "1. Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in upholding the computation of the value of fringe benefit in the case of assessee engaged in the business of growing, manufacturing and sale of tea without having regard to the relevant provisions of the Incometax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules 1962. 2. Whether the Tribunal below committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpose of tax therein. The issue has been decided in the unreported judgement delivered on 3rd July, 2014 in ITAT 165 of 2013, G.A.No.3135 of 2013 (M/s.Apeejay Tea Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I & Anr.) in considering an illustration given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Doom Dooma India Ltd. reported in 310 ITR 392. We set out the relevant portion of the said judgement : " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure on account of fringe benefits has already been taken into account is not correct. The net profit and loss of the business has to be arrived at after deducting all the expenses as indicated in illustration 'A' in the case of Doom Dooma (supra). Once that is done 40% of the net profit and loss has to be worked out which shall be chargeable to tax. Once this is done the expenditure on acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tia naturally do not help the revenue. The judgment cited by her was with regard to the question as to whether fringe benefit tax amounts to double taxation. That question 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 assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
