TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eas. This appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2013, on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the expenses incurred towards visa charges and others are not liable for fringe benefit tax as the same was legitimate business expenditure, when the provisions of Section 115WB of the Act contemplates levy of surcharge in respect of expenditure incurred towards employees during course of business and recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in reversing the finding of the Assessing Officer by bringing to fringe benefit tax the expenditure incurred towards visa charges and others as per Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee was allowed. The revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 08.06.2012, dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue, while referring circular No.8/2005 dated 29.08.2005, submitted that object of levy of fringe benefit tax is tax on expenditure and the value of fringe benefit is determined by a presumptive method. It is also submitted that the charge under Section 115WB(2) does not refer to benefit and wherever the exclusion is intended, the same is expressly provided. It is also argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that visa charges do not give any personal benefit to the employee and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded in favour of the assessee by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which do not suffer from any infirmity. It is also submitted that recourse can be had to the speech of the Finance Minister in the Parliament to understand the import of the provisions of the Act. In support of aforesaid submission reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'K.P.VARGHESE Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER' (1981) 7 TAXMAN 13 (SC). 5. By way of rejoinder, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the revenue in the instant case has invoked Section 115WB(2) of the Act and sub-Section (1) and (2) operate on different whims. It is further submitted that if there is an ambiguity in the provision the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (d) any specified security or sweat equity shares allotted or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer free of cost or at concessional rate to his employees (including former employee or employees). Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause,- (i) "specified security" means the securities as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) and, where employees' stock option has been granted under any plan or scheme therefor, includes the securities offered under such plan or scheme; (ii) "sweat equity shares" means equity shares issued by a company to its employees or directors at a discount or for consideration other than cash for providing know-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med as fringe benefits deemed to have been provided by the employer to the employees. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has also issued a Circular No.8/2005 dated 29.08.2005 with regard to the expenses incurred by the assessee for the services / activities referred to in Clause (A) to (P) of sub-Section (2) of Section 115WB. 8. In the instant case, the assessee has incurred expenditure on visa charges. The aforesaid expenditure does not render any benefit to the employees in the guise of foreign travel or tour. The visa's and other related expenditure had been incurred by the employer to send its employees to the work place abroad for the purposes of business for scientific tenures and not to move around the country for sight seei....