<?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 (12) TMI 1707 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281602</link>
    <description>Appellate authorities may entertain a fresh claim on the correct computation of fringe benefit tax even if the original return included the disputed items. Reimbursement of medical expenses to employees was treated as an employee perquisite taxable, if at all, in employees&#039; hands and therefore was not includible in the employer&#039;s fringe benefit base. Expenditure on uniforms for chauffeurs was also excluded because it was incurred to meet a business and statutory obligation, including compliance with applicable motor vehicle rules, and such outlay was outside employees&#039; welfare expenditure for fringe benefit tax purposes. The assessee&#039;s exclusions were accepted and the fringe benefit assessment was to be recomputed accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:30:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1707 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281602</link>
      <description>Appellate authorities may entertain a fresh claim on the correct computation of fringe benefit tax even if the original return included the disputed items. Reimbursement of medical expenses to employees was treated as an employee perquisite taxable, if at all, in employees&#039; hands and therefore was not includible in the employer&#039;s fringe benefit base. Expenditure on uniforms for chauffeurs was also excluded because it was incurred to meet a business and statutory obligation, including compliance with applicable motor vehicle rules, and such outlay was outside employees&#039; welfare expenditure for fringe benefit tax purposes. The assessee&#039;s exclusions were accepted and the fringe benefit assessment was to be recomputed accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>