AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n deleting the addition of Rs. 7,87,29,594/- to fringe benefit on account of advertisement expenses solely relying on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT for the AY 2008-09, whereas the assessee had failed to submit complete documentary evidence which can prove that the expenditure falls within the purview of proviso to section 115W(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the assessee submitted only sample evidence before the Assessing Officer and also did not submit complete details in the form of invoices/bills/vouchers before the Ld. CIT(A)." 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of CIT(A). The ITAT vide its order (ITA no. 1026 & 1027/Del/2014) dated May 20, 2016 has partly allowed the appeal on account of 'Conveyance tours and travels'. With regard to expenses under 'Advertisement, Publicity and Sales promotion) the ITAT remanded back the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. 5. On the issue of FBT on advertisement publicity and sales promotion, ITAT remanded the matter to the file of assessing officer with the following observation:- "Regarding expenditure incurred on advertising and sales promotion, it is clear from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has provided 75% of the details. The assessee claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Fringe Benefits Tax." 7. Against the above order, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) noted assessee's submission that assessing officer has rejected the assessee's claim without specifying anything and that identical issue has been decided in favour of assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has held as under:- "The AR of the appellant has stated that the AO had not verified the details/documents submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) as an additional evidences and accordingly, the Hon'ble bench has deemed it proper to remand the matter back to the AO for his verification and the AR has argued that the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order has refrained from dealing with the aforesaid issue on the merits of the case and se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able. The assessee has himself stated that conference charges have already been considered in return of FBT including dealers' conference expenses. Further the scholarship was also offered for taxation. As per the page Nos. 3 and 4 of the paper book, the learned Departmental Representative could not controvert that how the decision of the CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition partly was erroneous. Further Co-ordinate Bench has held that Fringe Benefit Tax is not leviable on channel placement charges paid to cable operators by T.V. Channel- Companies. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we also hold that addition upheld by the learned CIT (Appeals) deserves to be deleted. Though assessee has submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee submissions. He pleaded that there was no adverse comment by ITAT on the 75% detail available at that time. The learned counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has duly given submissions before the assessing officer and the ld. CIT(A) has duly noted the same in the body of his order. The ld. counsel submitted that in the submissions, it was made clear that no FBT was exigible on these expenditures. He submitted that after duly taking note of the assessee's submission, finding the issue to have been covered in favour of the assessee by earlier and subsequent decision of ITAT, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the assessee's claim. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon'ble High ....