DCIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5985/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 November 2016AY 2006-073 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the subscription fees paid for brand usage were not subject to Fringe Benefit Tax. The decision followed previous binding orders of the Tribunal and the High Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which excluded subscription fees paid to Tata Sons Ltd from fringe benefits. The assessee argued that the fees were for brand usage and similar issues were decided in their favour for other assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether subscription fees paid for brand usage are includible in fringe benefits assessable under Section 115WB(2)(D) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115WB(2)(D)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bahadur, CIT-DR

For Respondent: Shri Firoze B Andhyarujina

Hearing: 09.11.2016Pronounced: 18.11.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 09.11.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 25.9.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-24, Mumbai dated 24.6.2014 for the assessment year 2006-07. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following ground which reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in excluding the subscription fees paid to Tata Sons Ltd from „fringe benefit‟ assessable u/s 115WB(2)(D) of the Act.”

2. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to para 7 of the CIT (A)‟s order and submitted that the said fees was paid by the assessee to the Tata Sons Ltd for us of „brand‟. The said expenditure was brought in the scope of fringe benefit under the provisions of section 115WB(2)(D) of the Act and the similar issue was came up for adjudication in the AYs 2007-2008 where the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT (A) in the present case followed the said order of the Tribunal for the AYs 2007-2008. This view was actually upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court in the assessee‟s own case vide appeal of 2012, copy of which is placed at pages 1-12 of the paper book.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →