The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. M/S Kotak Commodity Services Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1862 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs. M/s Kotak Commodity Services Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1863 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs. M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent .... Mr. Ashok Kotangale, Senior Advocate a/w Arun D. Nagarjun,Advocate i/b Padma Divakar for Appellant.Mr. A.K. Jasani, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 10 & 11. .... CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.DATED : 16 SEPTEMBER 2015 P.C.: Both these appeals under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (the 'Act') have been filed by the revenue against thecommon impugned order dated 16 January 2013 of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The impugned order allowed 1 / 4 the respondent-assessee's appeals for the Assessment Year 2006-07in respect of both the respondent-assessee. 2.The questions of law as proposed for our consideration by the revenue reads as under: “(A)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal wasjustified in law in holding that Fringe Benefits cannotarise when the expenditure is incurred on non-employees without appreciating that the deemingprovisions of Section 115WB(2) are not subject to theprovisions of Section 115JB(1) of the Income Tax Actbut enlarge the scope of sub-section 115JB(1)? (B)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal wasjustified in law in holding that expenses which arespecifically mentioned in Section 115WB(2) can bereduced from the valuation of fringe benefit if theyhave not been incurred for employees withoutappreciating that the CBDT Circular No.8 of 2005categorically states that sub section (2) is an extensionof sub-section (1) of section 115JB of the Act?” 3.The learned Counsel for the parties jointly state thatidentical appeals filed by the revenue from the common impugnedorder in respect of other parties to this Court being Income TaxAppeal Nos. 1818/2013, 1829/2013 and 1831/2013 weredismissed yesterday i.e. 15 September 2015. This was by followingthe decision rendered of this Court in CIT Vs. Kotak Mahindra OldMutual Life Insurance Ltd. being Income Tax Appeal No. 674/2012decided on 22 August 2014. In fact, the impugned order followsthe decision of the Tribunal rendered in Kotak Mahindra OldMutula Life Insurance Ltd. (supra). 4.For the reasons indicated in our order passed on 15September 2015 in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1818/2013, 1829/2013and 1831/2013, we see no reason to interfere with the impugnedorder. 5.Accordingly, appeals dismissed. No order as to costs. [G.S. KULKARNI, J] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.] Order. CERTIFICATE Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed