M/s. MRF Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2086/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7453 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAROJ KUMAR PAR DIA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2086/(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. MRF LIMITED, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NO.124, GREAMS ROAD, VS. OF INCOME-TAX, CHENNAI 600 006. LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, CHENNAI 34. PAN AAACM 4154 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARDIA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, IRS, ADD L. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DATE OF HEARING : 1 ST MARCH, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 ST MARCH, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT AT CHENNAI DATED 24.11.2011. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE FRINGE TAX ITA 2086/11 :- 2 -: ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SEC.115WB(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL READ AS BELOW : 1.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN CONSIDERING MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT UP TO ` 15,000/- PER EMPLOYEE AS FRINGE BENEFIT U/S.115WB(2) OF THE ACT. 1.2 HE FAILED TO NOTE THAT BY PROVISO (V) TO SEC.1 7(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, EXPENDITURE FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT U P TO ` 15,000/- IS EXEMPT IN THE HANDS OF EMPLOYEES. HE F AILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF FBT IS TO TAX CERT AIN COLLECTIVE BENEFITS ENJOYED BY EMPLOYEE WHICH ARE NOT TAXED IN THE HANDS OF EMPLOYEE. HE ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH AT WHEN MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENTS UP TO ` 15,000/- WERE EXEMPT IN THE HANDS OF EMPLOYEE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR LE VY OF FBT IN THE HANDS OF EMPLOYER. 1.3 HE, THEREFORE, ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE TAXABL E VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT AT ` 3.34 CRORES. 1.4 THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DEC ISIONS OF BANGALORE ITAT IN VIJAYA BANK V. JCIT (48 SOT 47) A ND MUMBAI ITAT IN GODREJ PROPERTIES V. ADDL. CIT (ITA 840/MUM/2010). ITA 2086/11 :- 3 -: 3. THE ABOVE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT, CHE NNAI BENCH B IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. IN THEIR ORDER DATED 10.6.2011 PASSED IN ITA NOS.375 & 376/MDS/2010 IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS QUALIFI ED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WERE LIABLE FOR FRINGE BENEFIT TAXATION. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THURSDAY, THE 1 ST OF MARCH, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 1 ST MARCH, 2012. MPO* COPY TO: (1) PETITIONE R (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.