Case Law Details
Mumtaz Hotels Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
CIT(A) opined that the said clothes were not protective ones and they are not uniforms and not compulsory uniform under the statute. We find that the employees’ uniforms have traditionally been used as a functional necessity. It is noted from the record that the assessee assumed the financial responsibility for supplying and maintaining the freshly cleaned clothing to the employees for wearing to work each day. Though they are personalized uniforms provided they are not available for employees’ personal use. The uniforms that are put on by the employees when they arrive at work and were taken off at the end of work. The said uniforms, it appears laundered and maintained by the assessee. It is clear that the said clothing (uniforms) are not available for general or personal wear of the employees and when the clothing is not actually used for general or personal wear, in our opinion, are not taxable under fringe benefits.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year 2007-08.
2. The only issue to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 115WB(2)(E) of the Act denying the claim of uniform allowance in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
