9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following common questions of law for our consideration: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the value of Fringe Benefit declared by the assessee itself in its original as well as revised return of Fringe Benefit Tax filed u/s. 115W of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although all the material facts were available with the assessee at time of filling of these returns? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on expenses incurred on (i) nonemployees and (ii) gift to nonemployees, in total disregard to the provisions laid in clause (A) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on expenses incurred on preoperative expenses stating that they are capital in nature on which depreciation is allowable merely on surmises and conjectures, without there being anything on record in support of the finding of the ITAT that expenditures have been incurred on capital asset on which depreciation is allowable and, therefore, this tantamount to perverse finding on fact? (7) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in granting relief of Fringe Benefit Tax on maintenance of accommodation not in the nature of guest house in total disregard to the provision laid in clause (A) to (P) of sub section (2) of Section 115WB of the Income Tax Act?". 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly filed its Return of Fringe Benefit before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 19th June, 2013, did not accept the Revenue's contention by placing reliance upon the order of this Court in CIT v/s. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. 336 ITR 349 to hold that even if a claim of deduction/ expenditure is not raised before the Assessing Officer, it can be raised in appeal. This by recording that in Goetze (supra) has itself noted that it does not in any manner, restrict the power of the Tribunal to deal with claims not made before the Assessing Officer; (d) Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges that the decision of this Court in Pruthvi Brokers (supra) is not applicable in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal of the Revenue in the case of Tata Consequently Services was dismissed on 24th March, 2015. Thus, confirming the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services (supra). No distinction has been shown to us which would warrant a different view. In the above view, Question (2) as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 5. Regarding Question (3): (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has held that in respect of medical reimbursement, medical facilities and education facilities made available to its employees,is taxable in the hands of its employees. Therefore, out side the scope of Fringe Benefit Tax; (b) At the hearing before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel appearing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
