|
|
|
| « From the Courts » |
|---|
Court On Its Own Motion vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) | Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-9, New Delhi Room No. 357, ARA Centre, E-2 vs. M/s Moets Bar-B-Cue,50, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi 110 024 PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFM7936M | ADIT, Cir. 1(1), (Intl. Taxation), 204, Drum Shape Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 110 002 vs. Ms. Meena Chopra, P-13, Ground Floor,Malviya Nagar, New Delhi | CIT vs. Awadh Hotels (P) Ltd (Allahabad High Court) | BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER | BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER | Mehsana Circle Vs Mehsana M/s.Shree Riddhi Corporation 32, Amikunj Society Near Technical School, Kalol | ITO, Ward 40(3), Room No. 307, Mayur Bhavan, vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Walia, Through L/H Mrs. Prem Walia, G-251, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, | M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.5th Floor, Diamond Square, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E),Mumbai – 400 098. | Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Room No. 413, CR Building, New Delhi vs. Maharani Paints India Pvt. Ltd., TA-3/146-C, Tuglakabad Extn.,New Delhi | Income Tax Officer, Ward 38(2), Room No. 234A, 2nd floor, CR Bldg., IP Estate, New Delhi vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Through Legal Heir Sh. Naveen Kumar, 9307, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj Delhi – 110 006 |
|
|
|
|
|
| « Income tax appellate tribunal allows tax benefits on... | Aircel enters Calcutta... » |
SC exempts Aussie company from fringe benefit tax |
|
|
| May, 23rd 2008 |
In the first ever judgement on the fringe benefit tax, the Supreme Court has held that an Australian company R&B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd, a service provider in the offshore oil drilling businesses, spending money on transporting people to manage rigs in waters off the Indian coast is not liable to pay FBT.
The controversial tax, which was introduced in the Finance Act 2005 by Finance Minister P Chidambaram, was a levy on the employer in relation to fringe benefits and perquisites enjoyed by employees, in cases where it was not possible to identify the individual tax base.
The Act came into force with effect from April 1, 2006. The object for imposition of the said tax was to bring about horizontal equity and not a vertical equity.
While setting aside the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) decision, which held FBT can be levied on the transport expenses incurred by the company, a bench headed by Justice S B Sinha held that R&B Falcon was a not liable to pay FBT on the transportation cost incurred by it in providing transport facility for movement of offshore employees from their residence in home country to the place of work and back.
|
|
|