THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/420/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01037281201316 September 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appellate authorities were correct in their decision. The expenses incurred towards visa charges and others were not liable for fringe benefit tax as they constituted legitimate business expenditure.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order that confirmed the appellate commissioner's decision. The core issue was whether expenses incurred for visa charges and similar items were liable for fringe benefit tax.

What were the issues?

Whether visa charges and similar expenses incurred for employees are liable for fringe benefit tax under Section 115WB of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115WB,Section 115WB(2)(F),Section 115WB(2)(q)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.420 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE-11(4), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - -

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.04.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.543/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (I) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.543/BANG/2012

DATED 19-04-2013 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR 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) have been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter I.T.A.No.420/2013 pertains to Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this court vide order dated 14.03.2014 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the expenses incurred towards visa charges and others are not liable for fringe benefit tax as the same was legitimate business expenditure, when the provisions of Section 115WB of the Act contemplates levy of surcharge in respect of expenditure incurred towards employees during course of business and recorded a

perverse finding?

(ii) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in reversing the finding of the Assessing Officer by bringing to fringe benefit tax the expenditure incurred towards visa charges and others as per Section 115WB(2)(F) & 115WB(2)(q) of the Act?

2.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. For the reasons assigned by us in the order passed today in ITA No.385/2012, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE ss

More judgments on Section 115WB

All 57 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115WB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →