9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is evident that expenditure incurred in imparting in-house training to employees is excluded from the ambit of fringe benefit tax. Other incidental expenses such as boarding, lodging, traveling and conveyance expenses would be liable to fringe benefit tax. Assessee had produced the documents before the authorities to show that it has incurred expenses for imparting training to its employees. Tribunal has rightly held that there was no fringe benefit in in-house training expenditure. Tribunal, on the basis of material available on record, has also recorded a finding that repayment of loan obtained for purchase of acquisition of assets cannot be brought within the purview of fringe benefit tax and it is only actual running and maintenance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, in the nature of inhouse training expenses whereby the relaxation provided in Question No.51 of FAQ in Circular No.8/2005 dated 29.08.2005 of CBDT would not be available to the assessee? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is in the business of trading and leasing of computer hardware, maintenance of computer equipment, development of computer software and related services. During Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee paid ₹ 32,89,067/- as equated monthly installments for car purchase on finance lease basis. Out of the aforesaid amount, an amount of ₹ 29,16,261/- was the principal amount, whereas ₹ 3,72,816/- was interest component. The company filed the return of fring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenses incurred and an amount of ₹ 20,87,84,185/- was added as fringe benefit. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 16.07.2013 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) by filing appeals. The Tribunal by an order dated 10.04.2015 dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue in respect of EMI as deemed expenditure chargeable to fringe benefit tax under Section 115WB(2)(H) by relying on the order passed by the assessee in the case of Assessment Year 2008-09. The Tribunal dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum incurred towards incidental expenses such as traveling, conveyance, boarding and lodging only to fringe benefit tax and aforesaid finding was accepted by the revenue. Therefore, the revenue cannot be permitted to question the same for the subsequent Assessment Year. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in RADHASOAMI SATSANG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (1992) 60 TAXMAN 248 (SC). 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant extract of Section 115WB(2)(C) of the Act which reads as under: conference (other than fee for participation by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of material available on record, has also recorded a finding that repayment of loan obtained for purchase of acquisition of assets cannot be brought within the purview of fringe benefit tax and it is only actual running and maintenance expenditure of the cars taken on finance lease which is liable for fringe benefit tax. The aforesaid finding of fact does not suffer from any perversity. 7. The Supreme Court in RADHASOAMI SATSANG, supra, has held that even though principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings, but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different Assessment Years has been found as the fact one way or the other and the parties have allowed the position to be sustained by not challenging the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
