9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e against bills submitted by him. In case of conveyance expenditure incurred for travel of the employee from place of residence to place of work and vice versa the payment is made to a third party. Applying the propositions laid down in the case of T.V. Today Net Work Ltd. (2013 (7) TMI 690 - ITAT DELHI) to these facts, we have to hold that FBT is not leviable on this payment also. Regarding expenditure incurred on advertising and sales promotion, it is clear from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has provided 75% of the details. The assessee claims that it had submitted given the entire details before the revenue authorities. As the dispute is whether the requirement documents and details were furnished to the AO or not, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69/-. For the A.Y. 2007-08 the fringe benefit value was determined at ₹ 18,44,29,059/- vide assessment order dt. 24th November, 2009. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal without success. Further aggrieved the assessee is before us. 3. We have heard ShriSachit Jolly, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Shri T. Vasanthan, the Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. 4. We first take up the order for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA 1026/Del/14. The first issue is addition to the value of fringe benefits, on account of relocation expenses. On a query from the A.O. the assessee had submitted that an expenditure of ₹ 2.28 crores under the head conveyance, tour and travels were not offered to FBT, as these were incurred for rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that an amount of ₹ 45,15,502/- was incurred towards conveyance of employees from their residence to the work place and vice versa and this was specifically excluded from FBT under Sub Section(5) of S.115 WB of the Act. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of TV Today Net Work vs. DCIT (2013) Taxman.com 409 (ITAT Delhi) and submitted that the payment in question was paid to third party for hiring cars, to transport the employees between their place of residence and work and hence these payments are not subject to FBT. He argued that the amount paid to packers and movers and the parties to whom payments were made are third parties and as there is no employer employee relation between the assessee and on such third part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details were furnished and that copies of vouchers were also filed and the recording by the A.O. is factually incorrect. 7. On theissue of FBT addition under the head travelling and conveyance, he pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) records that details of an amount of ₹ 1.45 cr. were furnished out of total exemption claimed of ₹ 1.83 crores. He submitted that the details have not been considered. He filed a paper book and dew our attention to pages 229 to 239 which consists of photo copy of vouchers and other documents to prove his point that all details were in fact furnished. He relied on the many submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. The Ld.D.R. on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not established with evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that FBT is not leviable on this payment also. Regarding expenditure incurred on advertising and sales promotion, it is clear from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has provided 75% of the details. The assessee claims that it had submitted given the entire details before the revenue authorities. As the dispute is whether the requirement documents and details were furnished to the AO or not, we deem it fit and proper to set aside this issue to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 11. Thus these two issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 12. In the result the appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal for the A.Y. 2007-08 is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
