TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and SEZ. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 07-08 on 29.12.2007 declaring total Nil income after setting off of carry forward losses and depreciation. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment of Fringe Benefit was framed under section 115 WE(3) of the Act vide order 30.12.2009 and the total Fringe Benefit was computed at Rs. 2,54,91,650/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 22.10.2010 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Notice of Demand) (vide Ground No. 7 of its appeal before him); d) On the appellant's plea, made vide Ground No. 6 of its appeal before him, without prejudice to the foregoing issues, to direct the learned Assessing Officer not to initiate any recovery proceedings for the Fringe Benefit Tax of Rs. 15,23,231 which the appellant had deposited in a separate bank account in conformity with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industries and Others; The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not rendering his decision on the issues at items (a), (c) and (d) above. 2. The appellant prays that unless this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it appropriate to keep the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by Chamber and Commerce Industries wherein it was agitated that the payments related to Sales Promotion does not fall within the ambit of FBT. The A.O did not accept the contentions of the Assessee. He was of the view that the nature of "Gifts" are such that it is not possible to categorize then completely with Sales Promotion. He accordingly directed the Assessee to pay the entire amount of Rs. 15,23,231/- along with interest as per the computation of Fringe Benefit Tax. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) confirmed the order of A.O by holding as under:- 2.3 I have carefully considered the assessment order as well as submissions made by the appellant. The provision of Section 115WB(2) i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levy of FBT cannot be invoked on expenses which are not incurred on the employees or their family members. He further submitted that on identical facts in the case of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ITA No. 3086, 3087 and 3088/AHD/2010 order dated 03.03.2014, the Hon'ble Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the A.O. to give a clear finding as to whether the expenses were incurred in relation to non-employee for business purposes. He therefore submitted that following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal, in the present case the matter may also be remanded with similar directions to A.O. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O and CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....employees and were incurred only in relation to non-employees and for business purpose of the assessee company. In these facts, we are of the view that it shall be in the interest of justice to restore the issue in the grounds of the appeal of the assessee for all three years to the file of the AO with direction to decide the same de novo in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the light of decisions of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in Arvind Fashions Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). The AO is further directed to record a clear finding that whether the expenses in question were incurred with relation to non-employees for the business purpose of the assessee as claimed by the assesseecompany. In case the....