TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... employees up to Rs. 15,000 without appreciating the fact that such amount is not subject to tax in the hands of the employee inasmuch as the medical expenses in excess of Rs. 15,000 is only considered as perquisites as per proviso (v) to sub- section (2) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by merely placing reliance on the decision of the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 without appreciating the fact that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not accepted by the Department and filed further appeal before the hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which is pending for adjudication." 3. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of computer software and providing related services. The return of fringe benefits for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 was filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment determining the chargeabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Departmental representative. We find that this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in I. T. A. No. 24(BNG)/2010 had dealt with this issue as follows : "8. Having heard both parties and having considered the rival contentions, we find that the 'B' Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bosch Ltd., cited supra, has considered the issue at length and has held that the payments made by the employees to the approved hospitals and the subsequent reimbursement of such payments to the employees by the employer do not attract fringe benefits tax. It was held that when an item which is to be treated as perquisite in the hands of the employees, is exempt in the hands of the individual employee the same cannot be subjected to fringe benefits tax. As one of us, i.e., the Accountant Member is a signatory to the said order, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench, these grounds of appeals are allowed." 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal on the same issue, we are of the view that there is no merit in grounds Nos. 2 and 3 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... while reiterating the sub missions made before the authorities below, submitted that there is no benefit derived by the employees of the assessee-company from bundling of one product with another and therefore, fringe benefits tax is not attracted. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., in I. T. A. Nos. 20(B)/2011 and 88(B)/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09 dated May 11, 2011. 12. On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 13. Having heard both parties and having considered the rival contentions, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., has held that any expenditure which is not incurred directly or indirectly for the benefit of employees is not liable for fringe benefits tax. In the case before us also, the employees of the assessee-company are not the beneficiaries. The customers are the beneficiaries. Therefore, respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. 18. The learned Departmental representative reiterated the stand of the Revenue as contained in the ground of appeal. 19. We have heard the submissions of the learned Departmental representative and we find that similar issue had been dealt with by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in I. T. A. No. 24(BNG)/2010, wherein it was held as follows : "14. As regards grounds Nos. 7 and 8 relating to treating the payments towards fees, venue hiring charges etc., for trainees enrolled as students in Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS) and treating the scholarships given to the trainees as fringe benefits and bringing the same to tax, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra). 15. The learned Departmental representative however, supported the orders of the authorities below. &....