Reimbursable employee benefits and fringe benefit schemes were not salary for TDS default purposes under the court's approach.

Employer reimbursements under a conveyance maintenance scheme were treated as reimbursable employee benefits, not salary, where the payments covered actual official vehicle expenses subject to limits and verification, and had also suffered fringe benefit tax. Holiday home scheme payments were similarly treated as fringe-benefit style reimbursements rather than salary when used for the stated holiday purpose, so the employer was not an assessee in default under TDS provisions. Any non-utilised amount could still be examined in the employee's hands, but that did not convert the employer's payment into salary for TDS default purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether conveyance maintenance reimbursement expenditure paid to employees was salary attracting tax deduction at source or a reimbursable benefit covered by fringe benefit tax. (ii) Whether amounts paid under the holiday home scheme were salary attracting tax deduction at source or a perquisite/fringe benefit outside the assessee's TDS default liability.

Issue (i): Whether conveyance maintenance reimbursement expenditure paid to employees was salary attracting tax deduction at source or a reimbursable benefit covered by fringe benefit tax.

Analysis: The scheme reimbursed employees for expenditure incurred on maintaining and using their own vehicles for official work, subject to prescribed limits, declarations, and verification. The earlier decision in the assessee's own case had already held that such reimbursement was meant to cover actual official expenses and that the employer's estimate for TDS purposes could not be faulted merely because the employee's individual assessment position differed. The fact that fringe benefit tax had been paid also supported the treatment of the payment as a reimbursable benefit rather than salary.

Conclusion: The payment under the CMRE scheme was not salary attracting TDS under section 192 and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether amounts paid under the holiday home scheme were salary attracting tax deduction at source or a perquisite/fringe benefit outside the assessee's TDS default liability.

Analysis: The scheme provided reimbursement for holiday-related expenditure for employees and their families, and the authorities found that the payment was not to be treated as salary where it was actually utilised for the stated holiday purposes. The applicable fringe benefit tax regime, including the relevant rule on holiday travel and accommodation benefits, and the fact that the assessee had paid fringe benefit tax, supported the conclusion that the employer could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201. Any amount not actually utilised for the scheme could still be treated as taxable in the employee's hands, but that did not alter the employer's position on TDS in these appeals.

Conclusion: The holiday home scheme payments did not justify treating the assessee as in default for TDS and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The tax appeals raised no substantial ground for interference, and the concurrent findings in favour of the assessee were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employer's payment is genuinely in the nature of reimbursement or a fringe-benefit scheme already subjected to the relevant fringe benefit tax regime, it is not to be treated as salary for TDS default purposes merely because the employee's individual tax position may differ.

---