<?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>Fringe benefits tax and penalty relief upheld where disputed employee expenses fell within statutory fringe benefit heads.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100492</link>
    <description>Employee travel, hospitality, conveyance, tickets, goods, and hotel boarding expenses were held to fall within the statutory heads of fringe benefits under section 115WB(1)(b) read with section 115WB(2), so the Tribunal upheld the quantum assessment on those items. The Commissioner (Appeals) was also found to have issued only a limited consequential direction to verify tax already paid and finalise computation, not an impermissible fresh remand on merits. On penalty, the Tribunal sustained cancellation under section 271(1)(d), holding that rejection of the assessee&#039;s exclusion claim in quantum proceedings did not by itself establish inaccurate particulars, following Reliance Petroproducts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 08:07:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 08:07:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Fringe benefits tax and penalty relief upheld where disputed employee expenses fell within statutory fringe benefit heads.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100492</link>
      <description>Employee travel, hospitality, conveyance, tickets, goods, and hotel boarding expenses were held to fall within the statutory heads of fringe benefits under section 115WB(1)(b) read with section 115WB(2), so the Tribunal upheld the quantum assessment on those items. The Commissioner (Appeals) was also found to have issued only a limited consequential direction to verify tax already paid and finalise computation, not an impermissible fresh remand on merits. On penalty, the Tribunal sustained cancellation under section 271(1)(d), holding that rejection of the assessee&#039;s exclusion claim in quantum proceedings did not by itself establish inaccurate particulars, following Reliance Petroproducts.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 08:07:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>