TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 974
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pertaining to the A.Y. 2007-08, wherein he confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) u/s 115 WE(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee, M/s Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of soft drinks. For the A.Y. 2006-07 it filed its return of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on 30th November,2006 along with the return of income declaring value of fringe benefits at Rs. 11,45,84,749/-. Similarly for the A.Y. 2007- 08, the FBT return was filed on 30th October,2007 declaring fringe benefit at Rs. 10,19,17,617/-. The A.O. completed the assessment u/s 115 WE(e) of the Act on 20th November,2008 for the A.Y. 2006-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iture are incurred on transportation of employees from residence to place of work, or office to other place of work or vice versa. This was also dismissed on the ground that the assessee has not furnished adequate details. 6. Before us the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the entire details were furnished before the A.O. He filed paper books consisting of copies of evidences and correspondence with the A.O. to prove his point. He submitted that the expenditure incurred on FBT was verified by the tax auditors. He argued that an amount of Rs. 1,84,03,112/- was incurred by the assessee towards transportation of house hold goods of their employees, on the transfer from one place to another and argued that this was not covered under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted out that the A.O. has accepted that relocation expenses are only reimbursed by the assessee. He pointed out that the entire details and bifurcation were filed before the A.O. and that the contrary finding by the A.O. was a perverse finding. 6.1. For the A.Y. 2007-08 he submitted that under the head "advertising, publicity and sales promotion" an amount of Rs. 19,36,77,306/- has been offered to FBT. His case is that the A.O. without considering the submissions of the assessee had determined an amount of Rs. 39,36,47,972/- to be the value of the FBT. Referring to the Ld.CIT(A), he submitted that the details of advertisement expenses were provided and that Ld.CIT(A) records that details of expenses to the extent of 75% were furnished. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of relocation expenses, the expenditure is incurred by the employee and later on the same is reimbursed to the employee by the assessee. It is not a case of the assessee company paying an amount directly to a third party. In the case of conveyance expenditure it is a payment made by the assessee company to a third party and not to the employee. Hence in the case of relocation expenses, no FBT can be levied, as it is a direct payment to a specific employee against bills submitted by him. In case of conveyance expenditure incurred for travel of the employee from place of residence to place of work and vice versa the payment is made to a third party. Applying the propositions laid down in the case of T.V. Today Net Work Ltd. (supra) to....