<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (9) TMI 320 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347563</link>
    <description>Chapter XII-H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 creates a Fringe Benefits Tax regime based on the employer-employee relationship in section 115WA, and section 115WB deems specified expenses to be fringe benefits through a legal fiction limited to its statutory purpose. The High Court held that such fiction cannot be extended beyond that purpose, but the validity and operation of section 115WB(2) must be examined in the context of a concrete factual application. Because no assessment finding had yet been made against the petitioners on any specific item, the question was not fit for abstract adjudication. Section 115WB(2) therefore did not require to be read down, and the answer was against the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 320 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347563</link>
      <description>Chapter XII-H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 creates a Fringe Benefits Tax regime based on the employer-employee relationship in section 115WA, and section 115WB deems specified expenses to be fringe benefits through a legal fiction limited to its statutory purpose. The High Court held that such fiction cannot be extended beyond that purpose, but the validity and operation of section 115WB(2) must be examined in the context of a concrete factual application. Because no assessment finding had yet been made against the petitioners on any specific item, the question was not fit for abstract adjudication. Section 115WB(2) therefore did not require to be read down, and the answer was against the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>