TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch of this Court vide order dated 11.12.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in giving relief to the assessee on the issue of principal component of the EMI payment for cars purchased on lease finance basis, by treating the same as outside the purview of FBT which is against the provisions of Circular No.8/2005? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing relief to assessee, when the expenses are not by any stretch of imagination, in the nature of inhouse training expenses whereby the relaxation provided in Question No.51 of FAQ in Circular No.8/2005 dated 29.08.2005 of CBDT would not be available to the assessee? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is further held that in assessee's case the expenses claimed to be in house training expenses are actually training expenses in general and the assessee has wrongfully claimed the benefit of exemption from fringe benefit tax from such expenses. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 1,04,39,20,926/- including an amount of Rs. 2,60,86,015/- incurred on travel incidental to training was held to be chargeable to fringe benefit tax and the same was calculated at the rate of 20% of the expenses incurred and an amount of Rs. 20,87,84,185/- was added as fringe benefit. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 16.07.2013 partly allowed the appeal pref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of law arises for consideration. It was further submitted that in house training expenses are not liable to fringe benefit tax, as payments were made by the assessee to Oracle and Infosys to train its employees and material in this regard was produced before the authorities. It is also argued that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by order dated 08.12.2011, passed in case of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10, directed the Assessing Officer to subject the sum incurred towards incidental expenses such as traveling, conveyance, boarding and lodging only to fringe benefit tax and aforesaid finding was accepted by the revenue. Therefore, the revenue cannot be permitted to question the same for the subsequent Assessment Year. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... employees is excluded from the ambit of fringe benefit tax. However, other incidental expenses such as boarding, lodging, traveling and conveyance expenses would be liable to fringe benefit tax. The assessee had produced the documents before the authorities to show that it has incurred expenses for imparting training to its employees. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no fringe benefit in in-house training expenditure. The Tribunal, on the basis of material available on record, has also recorded a finding that repayment of loan obtained for purchase of acquisition of assets cannot be brought within the purview of fringe benefit tax and it is only actual running and maintenance expenditure of the cars taken on finan....