9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed return of income. CIT(A) erred in not examining the claim of the assessee for the reason that the claim made by the assessee to exclude certain items of the expenditure from value of fringe benefit was contrary to the return of fringe benefit filed by the assessee. The tax liability cannot be determined on the basis of admission and has to be in the light of the relevant statutory provision. We therefore hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in examining the claim of the assessee in this regard. We therefore proceeded to examine the correctness or otherwise of the claim by the assessee in this regard. It is not disputed by the revenue that reimbursement of medical expenses was perquisite in the hands of the employees and tax is paya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessee. - I.T.A No.1373/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2017 - Sri N.V.Vasudevan And Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCA For the Respondent: Shri S.Dasgputa, Addl. CIT(DR) ORDER N.V.Vasudevan, This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 27.04.2016 of CIT(A)-2, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2007-08. 2. The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of transportation and car rental. The assessee filed its return of Fringe Benefit for the purpose of Fringe Benefit Tax on 30.10.2007 showing taxable fringe benefit of ₹ 52,94,474/-. The return was processed u/s 115WE(1) of the Income Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r rental services to the guests of the Oberoi and the Trident hotels in India. The assessee joined hands with Avis which is a world renowned car rental company. The company in compliance with the world class standards in car rentals as a matter of policy has to ensure that the overall appearance of the chauffeurs has to be good. Towards this objective the assessee provided uniforms to all the chauffeurs. The uniforms have to be clean and ironed with proper fitting. The assessee thus submitted that there is no element of welfare involved as no benefit flows to the staff/drivers by wearing such uniform. Therefore the uniform expenses should not be considered for the purpose of calculating chargeable expenditure for fringe benefit tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere made before the AO. The ld. Counsel further brought to or notice that in the state of West Bengal, West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rule 1989 Rule 20 specifically provides that the licensing authority may require that every driver of a transport vehicle shall wear uniform while driving the motor car. Rule 24(2) of the said rules further provides as follows :- (2) A driver of a meterless taxi engaged for carrying tourists shall- (a) wear special uniform consisting of a trousers and a coat which shall be of white colour in summer and of blue colour in winter; (b) be neat and tidy and shall pay special attention to his personal cleanliness; (c) not indulge in any touting and shall not accept any commission or fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equipment to the employees or incurred for the purposes of reimbursement of washing charges, is exempt from FBT to the extent such expenditure is incurred to meet such statutory obligation. 11. On the question of expenditure of medical reimbursement not being part of expenditure of providing fringe benefits the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Bangalore in the case of DCIT vs Wipro Ltd. (2014) 46 ITR(Trib) 179 (Bangalore). In the aforesaid decision the Tribunal held that payments made by the employee to the private hospitals and subsequent reimbursement of such payments to the employees by the employer does not attract fringe benefit tax. The Tribunal held that such reimbursement are chargeable to tax in the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of a revised return of income. The decision cited in this regard by the ld. Counsel for the assessee support his contention. In our view, the CIT(A) erred in not examining the claim of the assessee for the reason that the claim made by the assessee to exclude certain items of the expenditure from value of fringe benefit was contrary to the return of fringe benefit filed by the assessee. The tax liability cannot be determined on the basis of admission and has to be in the light of the relevant statutory provision. We therefore hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in examining the claim of the assessee in this regard. We therefore proceeded to examine the correctness or otherwise of the claim by the assessee in this regard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
