2015 (10) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... een incurred for employees? - Held that:- Identical appeals filed by the revenue from the common impugned order in respect of other parties to this Court were dismissed [2015 (10) TMI 86 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. This was by following the decision rendered of this Court in CIT Vs. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. being Income Tax [2015 (10) TMI 82 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided against re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Fringe Benefits cannot arise when the expenditure is incurred on non-employees without appreciating that the deeming provisions of Section 115WB(2) are not subject to the provisions of Section 115JB(1) of the Income Tax Act but enlarge the scope of subsection 115JB(1)? .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. being Income Tax Appeal No. 674/2012 decided on 22 August 2014. In fact, the impugned order follows the decision of the Tribunal rendered in Kotak Mahindra Old Mutula Life Insurance Ltd. (supra). 4. For the reasons indicated in our order passed on 15 September 2015 in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1818/2013, 1829/2013 and 1831/2013, we see no reason to int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X