DCIT v. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.

134 ITD 388Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#22421 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 115WASection 115WBSection 143(3)Section 147

Judgments citing DCIT v. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.

Apar Lubricant Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the addition made on account of fringe benefit tax is deleted on merits, and the grounds relating to the validity of reopening are treated as academic

ITA 7360/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 115WSection 143(3)Section 147

…out that the assessee’s expenditure squarely falls within these exclusions, and in any case, does not result in any employee benefit. 7. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT v. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. [2012] 134 ITD 388, wherein it has been held that section 115WB is a deeming provision and applies only when the expenditure is in the nature of consideration for employment, and that fringe benefit cannot arise when expenditure is incurred on persons who are not employees. It was further urged that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in T&T Motors Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 341…

The Poona Stud Farm Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 394/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, Addl.CIT
Section 115WSection 253

…. He submitted that since these persons are not the employees of the assessee, the question of paying FBT does not arise and for this proposition, he relied on the decisions in the case of DCIT Vs. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., reported in 134 ITD 388 (Mum) and Joshi Technology International Incorporation reported in 157 TTJ 468 (Ahd). Ld.D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of AO. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to consideration of fringe benefit of the various expenses. Before us, Ld.A.R. has…

The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Health Care Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.P. Tolani & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.611/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri R.I. Patel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Jigar M.Patel, AR
Section 115WSection 271Section 271(1)(d)

…'s claim does not attract the penal provisions and therefore levy of impugned penalty is not in accordance with law. 3.4. I have given my careful consideration to the facts of the matter. In the case of DCIT Vs. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., 134 ITD 388 (Mum) (2011), it was held that Section 115WB(2) applies ACIT vs. Cadila Health Care Ltd. Asst.Year – 2006-07 only when the expenditure is for employment. In the case of Desai Brothers Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT 32 taxmann.com (2013)(Pune), it was held that "the interpretation sought to be advanced by the Revenue is not borne out of the statutory provisio…