Income Tax : Learn about Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT), a former Indian tax on employers. This guide covers its introduction, controversial rules, a...
Income Tax : Understanding Section 194R of the Income Tax Act 1961. Is it double taxation or an entry for fringe benefit tax? Find out the impl...
Income Tax : The penalty provisions of section 271FB of the Income Tax Act applies to all the employer (who paid fringe benefits to its employe...
Income Tax : Employee Stock Options Plans (ESOPs) and its different variants like Employees Stock Purchase Plans, Stock Appreciation Rights, St...
CA, CS, CMA : Consequent to abolition of fringe benefit tax, certain benefits taxed earlier as fringe benefits in the hands of the employer woul...
Income Tax : The Direct Taxes Code 2009 is now on the back burner. The Union finance ministry has veered round to the view that its bold move t...
Income Tax : The Central Board of Direct Taxes have decided that any instalment of advance tax paid in respect of fringe benefits for assessmen...
Income Tax : Income tax refunds may get delayed for a fortnight, following a complete revamp of security buffers in the computer software syste...
Income Tax : The government will allow companies to adjust the fringe benefit tax (FBT) paid by them against the advance tax due in the March q...
Income Tax : The fringe benefit tax (FBT) was strongly opposed by India Inc, but there is no doubt that it was beneficial to the employees — ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that advertising and sales promotion expenses incurred on dealers and third parties cannot be treated as fringe ...
Income Tax : Dive into Prakash Industries Ltd vs ACIT case dissected by ITAT Delhi, detailing FBT exemptions for transport services and medical...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that fringe benefit tax is an allowable deduction in computing book profit as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax ...
Income Tax : Bilfinger Neo Structo Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) As regards ground relating to Employees Welfare Expenses includible in va...
Income Tax : Jyoti Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Solitary issue involved therein relates to the addition by Assessing Officer and confirmed by ...
Income Tax : Circular No. 2/2010-Income Tax The Finance Act, 2005 introduced a levy namely Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on the value of certain fr...
Income Tax : Notification No. 1/2009 - Income Tax The Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. from 1 April 2008, introduced a new concept of Electronic Meal...
Income Tax : NOTIFICATION NO 11/2008, Dated: January 18, 2008 Valuation of specified security not being an equity share in the company. 40D. Fo...
Income Tax : NOTIFICATION NO. 264/2007, DATED 23-10-2007 Valuation of specified security or sweat equity share being a share in the company. 40...
Income Tax : By virtue of the provision of clause (d) of sub-section (1) section 115 WB, introduced by Finance Act, 2007, an employer is liable...
The penalty provisions of section 271FB of the Income Tax Act applies to all the employer (who paid fringe benefits to its employees) who fails to furnish the ‘return of fringe benefits’ as required under section 115WD (1) of the Income Tax Act. The said penalty provisions of section 271FB are taken up and explained […]
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 […]
Employee Stock Options Plans (ESOPs) and its different variants like Employees Stock Purchase Plans, Stock Appreciation Rights, Stock Awards, etc, have been used by employers to attract, retain and motivate employees. ESOPs have been popular primarily in the knowledge-based industries like information technology, biotechnology, etc. However, in the recent past, they have gained prominence even in traditional industries like manufacturing.
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited Vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Taxes borne by the assessee on non-monetary perquisites provided to employees forms part of Employee Benefit cost and akin to Fringe Benefit Tax since they are certainly not below the line items since the same are expressively disallowed u/s 40(a)(v) and the same do not constitute […]
M/s. Gujrani & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that the audit expenses of Rs. 5,19,238/- were claimed to be incurred by the assessee- company towards traveling and conveyance of the Articled Clerks, who were C.A. students receiving training from the assessee- firm. It was contended by the assessee during the […]
It is clear from the provision of section 115WB(2)(B)(i) of the Act that expenditure on food provided by the employer to the employees in an office or factory does not form part of the fringe benefit.
Gaurav Seksaria Vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Reimbursement of expense incurred during foreign visit to Director by Company is not taxable as Perquisite It is not in dispute that the assessee employee had not claimed any expenditure as deduction which were incurred by him through credit card during his foreign travel. He incurred expenses through credit […]
When the language of Section 115WA and 115WB is clear and unambiguous and even the intention of the legislature while enacting sections 115WA and 115WB(2) is very clear i.e. with respect to the deemed fringe benefits, neither there is any scope for either literal and/ or purposive interpretation nor there is any occasion to consider the intention and for that purpose the speech of Honourable Prime Minister in the Parliament.
The employer i.e. ONGC has paid fringe benefit u/s 115WA of the Act to the employee and thus, the employee was not bound to pay tax on the aforementioned expenses, as a part of his salary.
While deciding Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 6747/M/2011, this Bench had the occasion to consider the Circular issued by CBDT being Circular No. 8/2005 dt. 29.8.2005 wherein this Bench has held that employer/employee relationship is a pre-requisite for the levy of FBT. Rationale for introduction of FBT is that it is difficult to isolate the “personal element” if the benefits are collectively enjoyed by the people which means that the provisions of FBT will be applicable only in respect of those expenses which contain or atleast are likely to contain an element of personal benefit to employees. We do not find any such thing present on the facts of the present case. The subscription amount has been paid as per contractual agreement between the assessee and M/s. Tata Sons Ltd. The invoice raised by M/s. Tata Sons Ltd. is for the services provided for it. As no employer/employee relationship exists between the assessee and M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., we agree with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that subscription payment deserves to be kept outside the purview of FBT.
