DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6516/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 September 2018AY 2007-084 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to distinguish the assessee's case from its sister concern's case, where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the relief granted by the CIT(A) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee offered Fringe Benefits (FB) at Rs. 28.06 Crores, but claimed certain expenditures were not chargeable to FBT. The Assessing Officer rejected these claims based on a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether certain expenditures offered to FBT were indeed chargeable to FBT, and if the CIT(A) rightly granted relief based on a previous tribunal decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115WD,Section 115WE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2007-08 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-13/Addl.CIT-7(1)/23/2015-16 dated ITA.No.6516/Mum/2016 Hindalco Industries Limited Assessment Year-2007-08 31/08/2016 qua certain relief provided to the assessee in the matter of computation of taxable value of Fringe Benefit [FB].

2.

Brief facts of the dispute are that the assessee had filed return of Fringe Benefit u/s 115WD (1) showing value of Fringe Benefit [FB] at Rs.28.06 Crores which has been accepted as such in an assessment u/s 115WE(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, at the same time, the assessee by way of note, submitted that the various expenditure as offered to FBT, were not at all chargeable to FBT. During assessment proceedings, the various submissions made by the assessee have been rejected by Ld. AO by relying upon CBDT Circular No. 08/2005 dated 29/08/2005.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee contested the stand of Ld. AO with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 31/08/2016 wherein the assessee’s stand has been accepted by relying upon the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of sister concern of the assessee titled as Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA Nos. 4910, 4911, 5632/Mum/2011 for AYs 2006-07 to 2008-09 dated 19/06/2013]. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. DR, Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, although placed reliance on the stand of Ld. AO but could not distinguish the factual matrix of assessee’s case with that of its sister concern and also could not bring on record any contrary judgment to negate the findings given by this Tribunal in the case of assessee’s sister concern. Per Contra, Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Mahaveer Jain, submitted that the issue stood squarely covered in assessee’s favor by ITA.No.6516/Mum/2016 Hindalco Industries Limited Assessment Year-2007-08 the aforesaid judgment and therefore, the stand of Ld. CIT(A) required no interference.

5.

We have carefully perused the orders of lower authorities and the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of assessee’s sister concern. We find that the revenue, in its grounds of appeal

1.

, has agitated the relief provided by Ld. CIT(A) on account of following head of expenditure:- No. Head of Expenditure Amount (Rs.)

1. Maintenance of residential colony for employees 3,35,89,497/- 2. Insurance premium paid by employer 28,54,059/- 3. Salaries to doctors/hospital staff/teachers 2,87,50,914/- 4. Salaries of pilots and drivers 40,55,738/-

5. Accommodation (not being guest house) 79,57,269/- We find that similar additions were made by the revenue in the case of sister concern of the assessee which has already been dealt with by this Tribunal as cited above. Relying upon the same, Ld. CIT(A) has provided the relief to the assessee. Before us, the revenue is neither able to distinguish the factual matrix nor bring on record any contrary judgment so as to enable us to take a different view. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. first appellate authority.

6.

Resultantly, the appeal stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th September, 2018.

More judgments on Section 115WE

All 68 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115WE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →