9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of Rs. 52,94,474/-. The return was processed u/s 115WE(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Subsequently a notice u/s 115WE(2) r.w.s. 142(1) of the Act was issued calling for certain details and clarification. 3. In the course of assessment proceedings the assessee vide its letter dated 31.08.2009 brought to the notice of the AO that while computing the value of chargeable expenditure for fringe benefits the assessee had considered the reimbursement of medical expenses amounting to Rs. 34,24,941/- as chargeable expenditure for calculation of fringe benefit tax. The assessee claimed that reimbursement of medical expenses will not form part of expenditure for providing fringe benefits because the same constitutes perqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be considered for the purpose of calculating chargeable expenditure for fringe benefit tax. 5. The above submissions of the assessee were not considered by the AO. The AO in the impugned order did not take cognisance of the revised computation of fringe benefit tax as made by the assessee in its submissions dated 31.08.2009 before the AO. In the order of assessment passed u/s 115WE(3) dated 31.12.2009 the AO brought to tax the value of fringe benefit at Rs. 52,92,474/- as declared in the return of fringe benefit tax filed by the assesee. 6. Before the CIT(A), the assessee pointed out the fact that the AO while completing the assessment had not taken note of the revised computation of value of fringe benefit filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal cleanliness; (c) not indulge in any touting and shall not accept any commission or favour from shops, hotels or restaurants; (d) not act as a tourist guide; and (e) hold such special pass as may be specified by the State Transport Authority in this behalf and issued by the licensing authority." The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee's cars are meterless taxis and Rule 24(2) would be applicable. He brought to our notice that under section 115WB(2)(E)(i) of the act any expenditure for employees welfare in compliance with any statutory obligation will not be included as expenditure for employees welfare for the purpose of calculating the value of fringe benefit for fringe benefit tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t tax. The Tribunal held that such reimbursement are chargeable to tax in the hands of the individual employee subject to statutory exemptions, if any and therefore cannot be regarded as Fringe benefit. 12. With regard to the order of CIT(A) in holding that the assesse cannot go back on what is declared in the return of fringe benefit, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. Britannia Industries Ltd in ITA NO.03 of 2013 dated 13.07.2017 in which the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court took a view that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 326 was applicable only to the power of the assessing authority consider a claim mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examine the correctness or otherwise of the claim by the assessee in this regard. 14. It is not disputed by the revenue that reimbursement of medical expenses amounting to Rs. 34,24,941/- was perquisite in the hands of the employees and tax is payable on the employee on such perquisite subject to basic deduction and exemption allowed under the Act. Under section 115WB(3) of the Act such expenditure cannot be part of fringe benefit provided by the employer to the employees. Therefore the claim of the assessee to exclude the reimbursement expenses from the chargeable expenditure for calculation of fringe benefit tax has to be accepted. The decision of ITAT Bench in the case of DCIT vs Wipro Ltd (supra) supports the plea of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
