TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. ADDL. CIT
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Member (J) -
(1.) ALL these appeals pertain to the same assessee on similar issues, so they are being disposed off by this common order.
(2.) IN ITA No. 1961/PN/2012, the assessee has filed the appeal on the following grounds.
1. On facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenses incurred by the appellant on items specified in section 115WB(2) are liable to FBT irrespective of the fact whether the said expenditure incurred resulted in any benefit to the employees.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that only such expenditure which results into a direct benefit to employee and which is not considered as salary is liable to FBT and hence, genuine business expenses incurred on items specified in section 115WB(2) which did not result in any benefit to the employees was not liable to FBT.
The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the expenditure incurred under the head "Market Support', "Travelling and Conveyance" "Conference", "Sales Promotion", "Use of hotel, boarding and lodging facilities" and "Use of telephone" were genuine business expenditure which were not resulting in any direct benefit to the employees either collectively or individually and hence, the said expenses were not liable to levy of FBT.
(3.) THE learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that:
i. Rs. 2,39,77,624/ - being expenditure grouped under Advertisement and discount are relating to Brand Building of a particular product and hence not covered by the exception provided in Section 115WB(2)(D) without appreciating that the said expenditure was covered within the exceptions provided in section 115WB(2)(D) and hence, no FBT was payable by the appellant company.
ii. that Rs. 33,74,874/ - being credit notes each below Rs. 5 lakhs grouped under Advertisement and discount are presumed to be outside the purview of any of the exceptions provided in Section 115WB(2)(D).
iii. He erred in holding that there was an element of indirect benefit to employees in respect of aforesaid Rs. 2,73,52,498/ - (Rs. 2,39,77,624/ - and Rs. 33,74,874/ -) and hence the said expenditure was deemed Fringe Benefits under section 115WB(2)(D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that there was no direct or indirect benefit to the employees of the appellant company and therefore, there was no reason to levy FBT on the said expenses.
iv. that Rs. 2,61,87,749/ - being expenditure incurred on Sales Promotion is not covered within the purview of any of the exceptions provided in Section 115WB(2)(D) without appreciating that the said expenses were also covered within the exceptions provided in Section 115WB(2)(D) and hence, no FBT was payable on the same.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.