TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring it was brought to our notice that identical issue was dealt by the Tribunal, while deciding the appeals for the earlier years. We find that while adjudicating the appeals for the earlier AY.s.(ITA.s.4910 & 4911 & 5632/Mum/2011 AY.s. 2006-07 to 2008- 09, dtd.19.06.2013), the Tribunal has dealt the identical issue as under: 2. Before proceeding with the grounds of appeal, it would be pertinent to discuss the issues raised by the Ld. Departmental Representative. It is the say of the Ld. DR that the assessee itself has filed Fringe benefit Tax return and has offered the value taxable as FBT, therefore, the assessee cannot retract now raising the issues relating to the taxability of FBT. It is the contention of the Ld. DR that if the assessee was not convinced with its return of fringe benefit, it should have filed a revised return failing which the assessee should be precluded from raising such grounds of appeal. In support of his submissions, the Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335. It is the say of the Ld. DR that jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the hierarchy cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it, the Appellant had valued the Fringe Ben efit and offered tax on the expenses incurred. However, in its return ofFringe Benefit, the Appellant had appended a note, indicating thataccording to it, no Fring e Benefit tax on the amounts offered ispayable. However, the same is being filed by way of ab undantcaution. The Assessing Officer after recording the fact of implied protest dealt with the various amounts returned by the Appellant in its Fringe Benefit Returns. However, by order dated 26th December, 2008, on merits, held that the tax is payable; (b) In appeal, the CIT(A) did not allow the Respondent-Assessee tourge that no Fringe Benefit Tax in fact is payable. This on theground that as the Respondent-Assessee had not claimed t he benefitin its Return, it cannot raise the issue in appeal. This by relying ondecision of the A pex Court inGoetze (India) Ltd. v/s. CIT 284ITR 323. Thereafter, the CIT(A) in his order date d 28th March, 2011dealt with each of the submissions on merits and negated the same; c) On further appeal by the Respondent-Assessee to the Tribunal, the Respondent-Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Tribunal in TataConsultancy Services (supra) was carried in appeal to this Court by theRevenue being Income Tax Appeal No.1132 of 2013. The aforesaid appealof the Revenue in the case of Tata Consequently Services was dismissedon 24th March, 2015. Thus, confir ming the decision of the Tribunal in thecase of Tata Consultancy Services (supra). No distinction has been shownto us which would warrant a different view. In the above v iew, Question(2) as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 5 Regarding Question (3):- (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has held that in respect of medical reimbursement, medical facilities and education facilities made available to its employees, is taxable in the hands of its employees. Therefore, out side the scope of Fringe Benefit Tax; (b) At the hearing before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent -Assessee had specifically stated that the aforesaid facilities are liable to tax as perquisites in the hands of employees/individu als. This is not disputed. Even today, nothinghas been shown to us from the record tha t the state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uccess. 10. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated that since the expenses were incurred for non-employees, there is no occasion for the levy of fringe benefit tax. A similar issue arose before the Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs Tata Consultancy Ltd. in ITA No. 3457/M/2011, wherein one of us (Accountant Member) is the author of the said decision wherein the Tribunal has held as under: "While deciding Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 6747/M/2011, this Bench had the occasion to consider the Circular issued by CBDT being Circular No. 8/2005 dt. 29.8.2005 wherein this Bench has held that employer/employee relationship is a prerequisite for the levy of FBT. Rationale for introduction of FBT is that it is difficult to isolate the "personal element" if the benefits are collectively enjoyed by the people which means that the provisions of FBT will be applicable only in respect of those expenses which contain or at least are likely to contain an element of personal benefit to employees. We do not find any such thing present on the facts of the present case." 11. Facts of the present case are identical, therefore, respectfully following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r contended that expenses on repair, running and maintenance of motor car/aircraft do not include remuneration paid to drivers/pilot. 18. We find that the contention raised by the assessee are supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sholinger Textiles Ltd. 240 ITR 908. Respectfully following the decision cited hereinabove, we direct the AO to exclude the value of such fringe benefit amounting to Rs. 23, 61, 629/- from taxable value of fringe benefit. This ground of the assessee is allowed. 19. Ground No. 4 relates to Insurance premium for motor car and aircraft. It is the say of the Counsel that the insurance premium is not the expense on repair, running and maintenance of motor car/aircraft and therefore not liable for fringe benefit. 20. We find that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. 207 ITR 553 has held that the expenditure incurred on repairs and insurance of car cannot be considered for disallowance u/s. 37(3A) of the Act. Taking a leaf out of the aforementioned decision, we direct the AO to exclude value of such fringe benefit of Rs. 4, 70, 334/- fro....