9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, A.R. O R D E R PER : Shri T.R.Meena, Accountant Member This two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Baroda, order dated 28.04.2010 for A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08. The identical grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the confirming total value of Fringe Benefit at ₹ 49,92,570/- in A.Y.2006-07 and ₹ 27,07,177/- in A.Y.2007-08. Both the cases are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inge Benefit Tax at ₹ 45,92,570/- in A.Y.2006-07 and ₹ 22,07,177/- in A.Y.2007-08. 3. Identical findings has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 and has confirmed the addition by observing as under:- "It is seen that the statutory auditors of the assessee, in the tax audit report filed u/s.44AB have themselves quantified the value of fringe benefits taking into ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out by the assessee itself. Hence valuation of the fringe benefits at ₹ 45,92,570/- is also confirmed. This ground thus fails." 4. Now, the assessee is before us. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant fairly admitted that this issue has been decided in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. against the assessee in ITA No.2264 and 2402/Ahmedabad/2010 for A.y.2006-07 & 2007-08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther find that the Assessing Officer has considered the Assessee to be covered in the dcategory-1 of the Assessees who were covered by the provisions of FBT in terms of the decision of Hon.Gujarat High Court (supra). Before us, the learned A.R. could not controvert the findings of Assessing Officer and CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
