9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tata Consultancy Limited. [2015 (5) TMI 518 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Income Tax Appeal No. 77 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2017 - A. S. Oka And A.K. Menon, JJ. Mr.Arvind Pinto for the appellant Mr.Girish S. Pikale for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. By this appeal, the appellant-revenue has taken an exception to the order dated 24th March 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Mumbai (for short the Appellate Tribunal ). 2 The respondent-assessee is engaged in business of software developments. The respondent-assessee filed Fringe Benefits Tax (for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its given by the assessee to its employees as a group where such benefits cannot be attributed to any single employee. It was observed by the First Appellate Authority that since such collective benefits were never taxed in the hands of the employer, FBT was introduced. A finding of fact was recorded that the expenditure incurred in the present case is purely business expenditure and is not covered by section 115 WB. 3 An appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the First Appellate Authority has been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by the impugned Judgment and order. In paragraph 7, the Appellate Tribunal considered the definition of fringe benefit under subsection 1 of section 115 (WD) and in paragraph 8 following find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Firstly, we refer to the said decision in Income Tax Appeal No.1132 of 2013. This was a case where the assessee company in its return claimed expenses on account of payment made to M/s.Tata Sons Limited. The expenses were included by the assessee company under the head of sales promotion'. However, the assessee company submitted that the amount paid to M/s.Tata Sons Limited was not towards sales promotion and therefore, should be excluded while computing the value of Fringe benefit for the purpose of FBT. In paragraph 6 of the said Judgment, the Division Bench has observed thus: 6 We are of the opinion, after reading of these provisions that the Legislature always had in min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld enable charging fringe tax emerges. The subscription amount has been paid as per the contractual agreement between the assessee and M/s.Tata Sons Limited. The invoices raised by M/s.Tata Sons Limited are for the services provided and there is no employer employee relationship between the parties. 7 We may note that in paragraph 3 of the said Judgment, the Division Bench specifically noted the argument made on behalf of revenue. The argument was that if the company to which the said payment was made organizes the promotional activities and assists the group companies such as the assessee in locating buyers etc, then that is squarely falling within the scope of fringe benefits. 8 Now coming to the facts of the case, we must refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier, were neither taxed in the hands of employee nor in the hands of employer, the FBT was introduced. At the end it is to be summarized that the expenditure incurred is purely business expenditure and is not covered by any of the subsections of 115 WB. Accordingly the same is not liable to tax under FBT. 9 The conclusion drawn by the Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 8 is already quoted above. There is no reason to find fault with the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) which are findings of facts. 10 Moreover, the case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tata Consultancy Limited. 11 Therefore, we find that no question of law much less ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
