2015 (6) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by the employer ostensibly for the purpose of business but includes partially a benefit of a personal nature passed on to the employee. But, a legitimate business expenditure not within the ambits of employer & employee relationship is outside the scope of FBT. In view of these observations, we hereby hold that the FBT provisions have wrongly been invoked in the present case. We hereby reverse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oes not have any employee. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming that there exists a master servant relationship between the appellant and its consultants ignoring the fact that the appellant does not pay any benefits of an employee to the consultants. 2. Facts of the case, as emerged from the assessment order passed under Section 115WE(3) of the I.T.Act dated 29.12.2009 for A.Y.2007-2008, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gitimate business expenditure not within the ambits of employer employee relationship is outside the scope of FBT. In view of these observations, we hereby hold that the FBT provisions have wrongly been invoked in the present case. We hereby reverse the legal findings of the authorities below and direct the AO to give relief accordingly. Grounds are allowed. Since a view has already been tak .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X