KOTAK MAHINDRA CAPITAL CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1812/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 July 2016AY 2008-093 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that an identical issue was restored to the AO in the assessee's own case by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertained to the assessment year 2008-09. The primary issue was whether certain expenses like business promotion and conference expenses were liable for fringe benefit tax.

What were the issues?

Whether certain business expenses are liable for Fringe Benefit Tax. Whether the AO should re-adjudicate the issue based on previous Tribunal decisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but relates to Fringe Benefit Tax provisions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), & RAJESH KUMAR,(AM)

For Respondent: Shri H M Wanare
Hearing: 19.7.2016Pronounced: 26.7.2016

सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date of Hearing : 19.7.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.7.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

Per RAJESH KUMAR, Accountant Member:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dt.28.12.2012 pertaining to A.Y. 2008- 09.

2.

At the outset, the ld.AR did not press ground no.1, and therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed.

3.

The issue raised in grounds of appeal

no.2 to 7 is against upholding the order of AO treating certain expenses such as business promotion expenses, gift expenses, telephone expenses, mobile expenses, travelling expense, conference and meeting expenses etc. are liable for levy of fringe benefit tax.

4. At the time of hearing the ld. AR vehemently submitted that the issue of FBT on the said expenses claimed was restored to the file of AO in its own case by the decision of co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in (AY-2006-07) and ITA No.8313/Mum/2011 (AY-2007- 08) dated 16.1.2013 for fresh adjudication in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in ITA No.63/Mum/2010 (AY-2006-07) in the case of sister concern. A copy of the said order filed by the ld.AR of the assessee is taken on record. We find merit in the submissions of the ld.AR and find from the record available before us including the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal wherein an identical issue has been restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision of the rendered in ITA no.63/Mum/2010 (AY-2006-07). Relevant extract of the decision rendered in ITA No.7334/Mum/2010 and ITA No.8313/Mum/2011(supra) is reproduced below:

“6. We have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in and 5151/M/10 (supra), we restore these issues back to the files of the AO for adjudication afresh in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in ITA No. 63/M/10”

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →