Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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
, 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.
Resultantly, the appeal stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th September, 2018.