Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › R & B Falcon vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

R & B Falcon vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 7, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

(1) Transportation cost incurred by a foreign assessee in providing transportation facility for movement of offshore employees from their residence in home country to the place of work and back is liable to Fringe Benefit Tax u/s 115WA.

(2) Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 115WB operate in different fields. S. 115WB(2) cannot be regarded as an extension of section 115WB(1). Sub-sec (3) of s. 115WB has application only in respect of sub-sec (1) and ex facie does not have any application in regard to the matters referred to in sub-sec (2).

(3) The contention that the employees must be based in India for purposes of sub-sec. (3) of s. 115WB cannot be accepted because it is contrary to the language and the CBDT Circular.

(4) The CBDT’s interpretation, being in the realm of executive construction, should ordinarily be held to be binding, save and except where it violates any provisions of law or is contrary to any judgment rendered by the courts. It is a contemporaneous exposition and akin to a representation made by an authority like Minister presenting the Bill before the Parliament.

(5) On facts, the AO to consider on material on record whether the payments were made on a regular basis or whether the expenditures incurred would strictly come within the purview of Section 115WB or not.

Note: The judgement of the AAR is reported in 289 ITR 369.

Related Judgements

  1. DCIT vs. Gujarat Alkalies (Supreme Court) 

    Commitment charges paid in respect of borrowed moneys are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act.
  2. JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) 

    The question as to whether the assessee had an option in law to claim partial depreciation in respect of any block of assets is remanded to the High Court to consider in the light of Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 … JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) Read…
  3. DCIT vs. Core Health Care (Supreme Court) 

    (i) Interest paid in respect of borrowings on capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year are deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; (ii) Interest on all moneys borrowed for the purposes of business are deductible … DCIT vs. Core Health Care (Supreme Court)…
  4. CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court) 

    In the case of a chit fund following the ‘completed contract method of accounting’ and offering income at the end of the chit, held, approving the method: (i) Recognition/identification of income under the Act is attainable by several methods of … CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court) Read…
  5. Kvaerner John Brown vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Jurisdiction u/s S. 143(1)(a) and 143 (1A) is confined to making “prima facie” adjustments. When there are conflicting judgments on interpretation of Section 80-O, it is not permissible to make “prima facie” adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) and consequently additional tax u/s 143(1A) is not payable.
    Read more ›