JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S DELL INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1310/BANG/2013Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 February 2015AY 2009-103 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. The tax amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated transportation charges claimed as exempt by the assessee as taxable fringe benefits. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, leading to an appeal by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether transportation charges are taxable as fringe benefits and if the appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115WB(2)(f),Section 115WE(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE

In this appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A),LTU, Bangalore, dated 17/06/2013 in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 115WB(2)(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short].

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company which is engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of M/s.Dell India Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 3 computer systems filed its return of income for assessment year 2009-10 on 30/9/2009 declaring a total value of fringe benefits of Rs.8,16,22,914/-. During the assessment proceedings u/s 115WE(3) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed transportation charges of Rs.50,19,592/- to be exempt from fringe benefit tax. The AO, however, held it to be in the nature of conveyance which is taxable u/s 115WB(2)(f) of the Act as fringe benefit. He, therefore, brought 20% of such expenses i.e. Rs.10,03,980/- to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the disallowance and the revenue is in appeal before us against the relief given by the CIT(A).

3.

At the time of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the AO while the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). In addition to the above, the learned counsel for the assessee has also brought to our notice that the tax effect in this case is only Rs.3,01,175/- which is less than the monetary limit of Rs.4 lakhs fixed by the CBDT for filing of appeals before the Tribunal and is therefore liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ranka & Ranka (2012)(206 ITR 322; Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt.Vijaya V.Kavekar (2013) 350 ITR 237 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sureshchandra

M/s.Dell India Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 3 Durgaprasad Khatod (HUF) (2014) 363 ITR 556 in support of the above contention.

4.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the taxable value of the transportation charges with regard to fringe benefit is Rs.10,03,918/- and tax on the same at the rate of 30% is Rs.3,01,175/- which is less than the monetary limit of Rs.4 lakhs fixedby the CBDT. In view of the same, we dismiss the revenue’s appeal on account of low tax effect.

More judgments on Section 115WE(3)

All 44 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115WE(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →