TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the employees are taxed beyond ₹ 15,000/- and if ₹ 15,000/- which is exempt in the hands of the employees is not liable for fringe benefit tax but over and above the aforesaid amount is liable for fringe benefit tax. Expenses incurred by the assessee on bundling of product - HELD THAT:- Effectively the bundling is not done free of cost as customer pays for the bundled project indirectly. The Delhi High court while considering the aforesaid issue in the case of T T Motors Ltd. [ 2012 (1) TMI 96 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that expenses incurred in bundling of products are not exigible to levy of fringe benefit tax. Expenditure for the purpose of business not connected to employees cannot be brought to tax under the fringe benefit tax. Therefore, we hold that the expenses incurred by the assessee on bundling of the product is not exigible to fringe benefit tax. Assessee has also incurred expenses for sponsoring Science Graduates to Post Graduate courses. From perusal of the document placed on record, it is evident that the assessee has enrolled the student in computer applications in the academy of the assessee viz., Wipro Academy of Software Excellence. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that provisions of FBT are not applicable in respect of expenses incurred towards payment of fees, venue hiring charges on trainees enrolled as students in BITS Pillani and scholarship given to the trainees including publicity expenses incurred by the assessee during the course of business activities without appreciating the fact that by virtue of deeming provisions of Section 115WB(2), there is no distinction between expense incurred towards employees and towards non employee? (v) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions of chapter XII-H are not applicable, without appreciating the fact that by virtue of deeming provisions of Section 115WB(2), there is no distinction between expenses incurred towards employees and towards non employee? (vi) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition made by the assessing authority by merely placing reliance on it's own decision in the case of M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd in ITA No.20/Bang/2011 and 88/B/2011, without appreciating the fact that the said orders have not been ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re concerned, since, there is no material on record as to what extent the cars were used for personal or professional use, therefore, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. It was further held that the issue with regard to depreciation on motor cars was also remitted to the Assessing Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has approached this court. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the tribunal has set aside the disallowance in respect of reimbursement of medical expenses granted by the assessee to its employees by ignoring the fact that the same is excluded as per proviso to viii of Section 17(2) of the Act read with Rule 3. It is also submitted that as per Clause 6 expenses relating to medical treatment incurred by the employer on its employees outside India is also excluded. Thus, it is evident that fringe benefit is excluded as per Section 17(2) of the Act. It is also argued that the expression 'prerequisite' is defined under Section 17(2) and proviso (v) clearly specify the definition of prerequisite would not include any sum paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of fringe benefit tax will not be attracted. It is also submitted that proviso (v) to Section 17(2) of the Act exempts medical reimbursement upto ₹ 15,000/- means that in absence of such proviso entire reimbursement would be taxable as prerequisite under Section 17(2) and therefore, out of the purview of fringe benefit tax. It is also submitted that the assessee in the course of sales of fast moving customer goods bundle has paid for bundled product indirectly and the same is not accessible to fringe benefit tax. While inviting our attention to a letter of enrollment for post graduate courses, a student has been enrolled who is not an employee of the assessee. The payment was made to the BIDS Pillani for expenses and BIDS Pillani is not the employee of the assessee. It is also urged that expenses incurred by the assessee was not towards scholarship but in fact expenses incurred at BIDS Pillani, therefore, the provisions of fringe benefit tax do not apply to the fact situation of the case. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-VI VS. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.', ITA NO.2399/2013 DATED ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
