COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.149 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

TAX, REVENUE BUILDINGS

QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE - 12 (5)

BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S WIPRO LIMITED DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 035. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.R.B.KRISHNA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.09.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1225/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PRAYING TO:1. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.09.2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B'

2 BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1225/BANG/2013 THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2016 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is not liable for fringe benefit tax in respect of reimbursement of medical expenses upto Rs.15,000/- without appreciating the fact that such amount is not subject to tax in the hands of the employee inasmuch as the medical expenses in excess of Rs.15,000/- is only considered as perquisites as per proviso (v) to sub section (2) of Section 17 of Income

3 Tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in law in holding that the provisions of fringe benefit tax are not attracted in respect of sales promotion without appreciating that by virtue of deeming provisions of Section 115WB(2) there is no distinction between expenses incurred towards employees and towards non- employees? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the expenditures incurred by the assessee towards course fee, charges towards conducting exam, etc. on the trainees at BITS without appreciating the provisions of Section 115WB(2)(P) and clause (d) of Section 115WC(1) of the Income Tax Act? 2. For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment passed today in I.T.A.No.231/2013, the

4 substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss