Section 115W is the gateway definition of the FBT code. It identifies the taxable person ('employer') and labels the levy ('fringe benefit tax'/'tax', chargeable under s.115WA). The charge itself lives in s.115WA; s.115W merely fixes who can be assessed. The 'employer' list is exhaustive — significantly, an individual and a Hindu undivided family are NOT employers for FBT, so a sole proprietor or HUF paying fringe benefits was outside the charge. The proviso removes from the FBT net persons eligible for exemption under s.10(23C), entities registered under s.12AA, and political parties registered under s.29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Historical context / FA amendment trail
Inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from assessment year 2006-07 as part of the new FBT regime. The definition remained substantially unchanged through the life of the Chapter. Rendered inapplicable from AY 2010-11 by s.115WM (Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009).
Operative consequences
• Only the five categories of 'employer' are within FBT; individuals and HUFs are outside the charge.
• Charitable/religious institutions (s.10(23C) or s.12AA registered) and registered political parties are excluded by the proviso.
• A foreign company is an 'employer' only if it is an 'employer in India', i.e. it has employees based in India (Circular 8/2005; noted in R & B Falcon).
• The employer-employee relationship is the jurisdictional foundation of the charge under s.115WA (Aristo Pharmaceuticals; Apar Lubricant).
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Block 1 reproduces the statutory text verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (text as printed; the Chapter remains on the statute book but is inapplicable from AY 2010-11 by s.115WM). The Finance Act, 2026 makes no substantive change to Chapter XII-H. Not legal advice.
Case Laws & Commentary
Section 115W — Definitions ('employer' and 'fringe benefit tax')
Case Laws & Commentary · Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) · bharattax.co Treatise
Chapter: XII-H — Income-tax on Fringe Benefits (Fringe Benefit Tax). Inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from assessment year 2006-07.
Operative life: FBT was levied for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. By section 115WM (inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009), the Chapter does not apply from assessment year 2010-11 onwards. The sections were NOT omitted — they remain on the statute book but are switched off prospectively.
Finance Act, 2026: Makes no substantive amendment to Chapter XII-H. (The Finance Act, 2026 carries only consequential cross-references to sections 115WD/115WH in a penalty provision; the FBT charge, scope and machinery are untouched.)
Part: A — Meaning of certain expressions.
Scope: Defines who is an 'employer' liable to FBT, and defines 'fringe benefit tax'/'tax'.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Section 115W is the gateway definition section of the FBT code. It does two things. First, clause (a) defines 'employer' exhaustively as a company, a firm, an association of persons or body of individuals (whether incorporated or not), a local authority, and every artificial juridical person not otherwise covered. Conspicuously, an individual and a Hindu undivided family are NOT employers for FBT — so a proprietor or HUF paying fringe benefits was outside the charge. Secondly, the proviso carves out persons eligible for exemption under section 10(23C), entities registered under section 12AA (charitable/religious trusts and institutions), and political parties registered under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Clause (b) is a definitional pointer: 'fringe benefit tax' or 'tax' means the tax chargeable under section 115WA. The charge therefore lives in section 115WA; section 115W merely identifies the taxable person and labels the levy.
The practical significance of the 'employer' definition is jurisdictional. Because FBT is a tax on the employer in respect of benefits to employees, the very first question in any FBT dispute is whether (i) the assessee is an 'employer' within clause (a), and (ii) the expenditure was incurred in an employer-employee relationship. The courts have treated the employer-employee relationship as a condition precedent to the charge — see the authorities under section 115WA below (Aristo Pharmaceuticals; Apar Lubricant).
A foreign company can be an 'employer' for FBT only if it is an 'employer in India', i.e. it has employees based in India — a position taken in CBDT Circular No. 8/2005 and noted by the Supreme Court in R & B Falcon.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Section 115W, Income-tax Act, 1961 (text as printed; Chapter inapplicable from AY 2010-11 by s.115WM):
115W. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) "employer" means,— (i) a company; (ii) a firm; (iii) an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not; (iv) a local authority; and (v) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses:
Provided that any person eligible for exemption under clause (23C) of section 10 or registered under section 12AA or a political party registered under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) shall not be deemed to be an employer for the purposes of this Chapter;
(b) "fringe benefit tax" or "tax" means the tax chargeable under section 115WA.
C. AUTHORITIES
There is no decision turning solely on the definition in section 115W; it is construed together with the charging section 115WA. The following authorities establish that the employer-employee relationship (the core of the 'employer' definition) is a condition precedent to FBT, and that a foreign company is an 'employer' only if it has employees based in India.
C-1 Employer-employee relationship as the jurisdictional test
Pr. CIT v. Aristo Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. (2020) 423 ITR 295 (Bom.)
Court: Bombay High Court; judgment dated 23 January 2020; assessment year 2006-07 (the first year of FBT).
Facts: A pharmaceutical company distributed free medicine samples to medical practitioners (doctors) to promote its products. The Assessing Officer sought to bring the expenditure within the FBT net under Chapter XII-H.
Held: For a levy of fringe benefit tax under section 115WA there must exist a relationship of employer and employee, because fringe benefits are, by definition, benefits provided by an employer to his employees. The doctors to whom free samples were given were not employees of the assessee; there being no employer-employee relationship, the expenditure could not be construed as a fringe benefit and was not liable to FBT.
Significance: Leading High Court authority establishing the employer-employee relationship as a jurisdictional condition precedent for the charge under section 115WA. Expenditure on non-employees (doctors, customers, dealers, third parties) cannot be swept into FBT merely because it is business promotion.
Apar Lubricant Ltd. v. DCIT-14(1)(1), 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 171, ITA No. 7360/Mum/2025 (ITAT, Mumbai)
Tribunal / Bench: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member); order dated 27 January 2026. A recent decision confirming that FBT disputes for the historic FBT years continue to be litigated and resolved.
Facts: The assessee, engaged in marketing lubricants, spent about Rs. 1.41 crore on advertising, publicity and sales promotion — performance incentives to dealers and distributors, promotional articles (key-chains, torches, T-shirts, bags), payments to advertising agencies, exhibition stall charges and sales commission. In reassessment the AO treated 20% of this (Rs. 1.08 crore) as a deemed fringe benefit under section 115WB(2)(D).
Held: The deeming provision in section 115WB(2) cannot be applied mechanically; FBT rests on the foundational concept of a 'consideration for employment', and there must be material showing that a benefit (direct or indirect) actually passed to employees. As the impugned expenditure was directed at independent third parties (dealers, distributors, customers, advertising vendors) and not employees, it was not a fringe benefit. The Tribunal deleted the Rs. 1.08 crore addition. It followed the Delhi High Court in T&T Motors Ltd. (that where accessories/promotional items are supplied to customers as part of a sale package for which consideration is paid, the expenditure is not sales promotion liable to FBT).
Significance: 'FBT is not intended to tax every business expenditure, but only those expenditures which, in substance and reality, represent a benefit to employees.' Reinforces R & B Falcon and Aristo Pharmaceuticals: the charge is confined to employer-to-employee benefits and the 115WB(2) fiction is anchored to that purpose.
C-2 'Employer in India' — foreign employers and binding circular
R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC) [AAR ruling reported at R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd., In re (2006) 289 ITR 369 (AAR)]
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India; judgment dated 6 May 2008. The first and, to date, the only decision of the Supreme Court construing the fringe-benefit-tax provisions of Chapter XII-H.
Facts: An Australian non-resident company supplied a Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig with crew to ONGC on a day-rate charter-hire basis. Its foreign offshore employees worked 28 'on' days on the rig and then returned to their home countries (Australia, U.K., U.S.A.) for 28 'off' days. The employer bore the cost of transporting them from a base city in the home country to a designated Indian city (economy air ticket) and onward to the rig by helicopter. The company sought an advance ruling on whether this transportation cost was liable to FBT.
Issues: (i) Whether the exemption in section 115WB(3) (which is expressed to apply 'for the purposes of sub-section (1)') is confined to 'general fringe benefits' under 115WB(1) or also covers the 'deemed fringe benefits' under 115WB(2); and (ii) whether the word 'residence' in section 115WB(3) must be read as residence in India.
Held: The Supreme Court held that sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 115WB 'operate in different fields' — 115WB(1) charges benefits directly provided as consideration for employment, while 115WB(2) creates a legal fiction deeming certain enumerated expenses to be fringe benefits. The exemption in 115WB(3) is, by its own terms, restricted to sub-section (1) and does NOT extend to the deemed fringe benefits in sub-section (2). On the second issue the Court reversed the AAR: there is nothing in 115WB(3) requiring the employee's residence to be in India, so the words 'in India' cannot be read in; the provision applies even where the employee resides abroad, provided the expenditure is genuinely on transport from residence to place of work and back.
Ratio / Significance: Foundational authority on the architecture of FBT: (a) the deeming provision in 115WB(2) is an independent expansion of charge, not a mere illustration of 115WB(1); (b) an exemption that opens with 'for the purposes of sub-section (1)' cannot be stretched to sub-section (2); (c) a statute must be read as a whole so that no part is rendered otiose; and (d) CBDT's interpretation of its own statute, being executive/contemporanea construction, is ordinarily binding on the Department 'save and except where it violates any provision of law or is contrary to any judgment'. The Court emphasised that FBT was introduced to bring about equity and to avoid double taxation of the same benefit in the hands of both employer and employee.
CBDT Circular No. 8/2005 dated 29 August 2005 (Explanatory Notes on FBT — 'FAQ' Circular)
Nature: Administrative circular issued under section 119 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes; the principal contemporaneous exposition of Chapter XII-H, answering 103 frequently-asked questions on the scope, valuation and machinery of FBT.
Key clarifications: Among other things the Circular states that 115WB(2) provides an 'expansive' definition that enlarges the scope of 115WB(1); that where there is no provision in section 115WC for valuing a particular benefit, that benefit — even if a 'general fringe benefit' under 115WB(1)(a) — is not liable to FBT; that a foreign company is liable to FBT only if it is an 'employer in India' (i.e. has employees based in India); and that sales discounts/rebates to customers or wholesale dealers are selling expenses outside clause (D) of 115WB(2).
Binding effect: Approved in R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC), which held that CBDT's interpretation '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.' This follows the settled line that beneficial circulars bind the Revenue — Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC); UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC); CCE v. Dhiren Chemical (2002) 254 ITR 554 (SC).
C-3 Field occupied by the FBT definitions (cognate)
All India Bank Officers' Confederation v. Union of India (Madras High Court) — cognate, on the scope of section 115WB
Context: A writ challenge to section 17(2)(viii) (perquisite valuation), not to the vires of FBT. Noted here only for its observation on Chapter XII-H.
Observation: The Division Bench observed that section 115WB defines 'fringe benefits' only for the purposes of Chapter XII-H — under which the additional income-tax (FBT) was imposed by section 115WA — and that the benefits listed in 115WB 'relate only to the fringe benefit tax chargeable under section 115WA and cannot be extended to section 17(2).' Useful authority that the 115WB definition is self-contained to the FBT code and is not portable to the salary/perquisite provisions.
Caveat: Candidly flagged: this is not an authority on the constitutional validity of FBT; it is cited for its construction of the field occupied by section 115WB.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (text as printed in the Act, the Chapter remaining on the statute book but rendered inapplicable from assessment year 2010-11 onwards by section 115WM). Citations are stated as reported; rulings of the Authority for Advance Rulings and orders of the Tribunal are flagged as such. Where a section has not been judicially construed, that is stated candidly and the nearest governing authority (including the machinery provisions imported by section 115WL) is given. This material is for professional reference and is not legal advice.
Function in the statutory architecture
Section 115W is the gateway definition of the FBT code. It identifies the taxable person ('employer') and labels the levy ('fringe benefit tax'/'tax', chargeable under s.115WA). The charge itself lives in s.115WA; s.115W merely fixes who can be assessed. The 'employer' list is exhaustive — significantly, an individual and a Hindu undivided family are NOT employers for FBT, so a sole proprietor or HUF paying fringe benefits was outside the charge. The proviso removes from the FBT net persons eligible for exemption under s.10(23C), entities registered under s.12AA, and political parties registered under s.29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Historical context / FA amendment trail
Inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from assessment year 2006-07 as part of the new FBT regime. The definition remained substantially unchanged through the life of the Chapter. Rendered inapplicable from AY 2010-11 by s.115WM (Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009).
Operative consequences
• Only the five categories of 'employer' are within FBT; individuals and HUFs are outside the charge.
• Charitable/religious institutions (s.10(23C) or s.12AA registered) and registered political parties are excluded by the proviso.
• A foreign company is an 'employer' only if it is an 'employer in India', i.e. it has employees based in India (Circular 8/2005; noted in R & B Falcon).
• The employer-employee relationship is the jurisdictional foundation of the charge under s.115WA (Aristo Pharmaceuticals; Apar Lubricant).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Block 1 reproduces the statutory text verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (text as printed; the Chapter remains on the statute book but is inapplicable from AY 2010-11 by s.115WM). The Finance Act, 2026 makes no substantive change to Chapter XII-H. Not legal advice.
Case Laws & Commentary
Section 115W — Definitions ('employer' and 'fringe benefit tax')
Case Laws & Commentary · Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) · bharattax.co Treatise
Chapter: XII-H — Income-tax on Fringe Benefits (Fringe Benefit Tax). Inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from assessment year 2006-07.
Operative life: FBT was levied for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. By section 115WM (inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009), the Chapter does not apply from assessment year 2010-11 onwards. The sections were NOT omitted — they remain on the statute book but are switched off prospectively.
Finance Act, 2026: Makes no substantive amendment to Chapter XII-H. (The Finance Act, 2026 carries only consequential cross-references to sections 115WD/115WH in a penalty provision; the FBT charge, scope and machinery are untouched.)
Part: A — Meaning of certain expressions.
Scope: Defines who is an 'employer' liable to FBT, and defines 'fringe benefit tax'/'tax'.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Section 115W is the gateway definition section of the FBT code. It does two things. First, clause (a) defines 'employer' exhaustively as a company, a firm, an association of persons or body of individuals (whether incorporated or not), a local authority, and every artificial juridical person not otherwise covered. Conspicuously, an individual and a Hindu undivided family are NOT employers for FBT — so a proprietor or HUF paying fringe benefits was outside the charge. Secondly, the proviso carves out persons eligible for exemption under section 10(23C), entities registered under section 12AA (charitable/religious trusts and institutions), and political parties registered under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Clause (b) is a definitional pointer: 'fringe benefit tax' or 'tax' means the tax chargeable under section 115WA. The charge therefore lives in section 115WA; section 115W merely identifies the taxable person and labels the levy.
The practical significance of the 'employer' definition is jurisdictional. Because FBT is a tax on the employer in respect of benefits to employees, the very first question in any FBT dispute is whether (i) the assessee is an 'employer' within clause (a), and (ii) the expenditure was incurred in an employer-employee relationship. The courts have treated the employer-employee relationship as a condition precedent to the charge — see the authorities under section 115WA below (Aristo Pharmaceuticals; Apar Lubricant).
A foreign company can be an 'employer' for FBT only if it is an 'employer in India', i.e. it has employees based in India — a position taken in CBDT Circular No. 8/2005 and noted by the Supreme Court in R & B Falcon.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Section 115W, Income-tax Act, 1961 (text as printed; Chapter inapplicable from AY 2010-11 by s.115WM):
115W. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) "employer" means,— (i) a company; (ii) a firm; (iii) an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not; (iv) a local authority; and (v) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses:
Provided that any person eligible for exemption under clause (23C) of section 10 or registered under section 12AA or a political party registered under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) shall not be deemed to be an employer for the purposes of this Chapter;
(b) "fringe benefit tax" or "tax" means the tax chargeable under section 115WA.
C. AUTHORITIES
There is no decision turning solely on the definition in section 115W; it is construed together with the charging section 115WA. The following authorities establish that the employer-employee relationship (the core of the 'employer' definition) is a condition precedent to FBT, and that a foreign company is an 'employer' only if it has employees based in India.
C-1 Employer-employee relationship as the jurisdictional test
Pr. CIT v. Aristo Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. (2020) 423 ITR 295 (Bom.)
Court: Bombay High Court; judgment dated 23 January 2020; assessment year 2006-07 (the first year of FBT).
Facts: A pharmaceutical company distributed free medicine samples to medical practitioners (doctors) to promote its products. The Assessing Officer sought to bring the expenditure within the FBT net under Chapter XII-H.
Held: For a levy of fringe benefit tax under section 115WA there must exist a relationship of employer and employee, because fringe benefits are, by definition, benefits provided by an employer to his employees. The doctors to whom free samples were given were not employees of the assessee; there being no employer-employee relationship, the expenditure could not be construed as a fringe benefit and was not liable to FBT.
Significance: Leading High Court authority establishing the employer-employee relationship as a jurisdictional condition precedent for the charge under section 115WA. Expenditure on non-employees (doctors, customers, dealers, third parties) cannot be swept into FBT merely because it is business promotion.
Apar Lubricant Ltd. v. DCIT-14(1)(1), 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 171, ITA No. 7360/Mum/2025 (ITAT, Mumbai)
Tribunal / Bench: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member); order dated 27 January 2026. A recent decision confirming that FBT disputes for the historic FBT years continue to be litigated and resolved.
Facts: The assessee, engaged in marketing lubricants, spent about Rs. 1.41 crore on advertising, publicity and sales promotion — performance incentives to dealers and distributors, promotional articles (key-chains, torches, T-shirts, bags), payments to advertising agencies, exhibition stall charges and sales commission. In reassessment the AO treated 20% of this (Rs. 1.08 crore) as a deemed fringe benefit under section 115WB(2)(D).
Held: The deeming provision in section 115WB(2) cannot be applied mechanically; FBT rests on the foundational concept of a 'consideration for employment', and there must be material showing that a benefit (direct or indirect) actually passed to employees. As the impugned expenditure was directed at independent third parties (dealers, distributors, customers, advertising vendors) and not employees, it was not a fringe benefit. The Tribunal deleted the Rs. 1.08 crore addition. It followed the Delhi High Court in T&T Motors Ltd. (that where accessories/promotional items are supplied to customers as part of a sale package for which consideration is paid, the expenditure is not sales promotion liable to FBT).
Significance: 'FBT is not intended to tax every business expenditure, but only those expenditures which, in substance and reality, represent a benefit to employees.' Reinforces R & B Falcon and Aristo Pharmaceuticals: the charge is confined to employer-to-employee benefits and the 115WB(2) fiction is anchored to that purpose.
C-2 'Employer in India' — foreign employers and binding circular
R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC) [AAR ruling reported at R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd., In re (2006) 289 ITR 369 (AAR)]
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India; judgment dated 6 May 2008. The first and, to date, the only decision of the Supreme Court construing the fringe-benefit-tax provisions of Chapter XII-H.
Facts: An Australian non-resident company supplied a Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig with crew to ONGC on a day-rate charter-hire basis. Its foreign offshore employees worked 28 'on' days on the rig and then returned to their home countries (Australia, U.K., U.S.A.) for 28 'off' days. The employer bore the cost of transporting them from a base city in the home country to a designated Indian city (economy air ticket) and onward to the rig by helicopter. The company sought an advance ruling on whether this transportation cost was liable to FBT.
Issues: (i) Whether the exemption in section 115WB(3) (which is expressed to apply 'for the purposes of sub-section (1)') is confined to 'general fringe benefits' under 115WB(1) or also covers the 'deemed fringe benefits' under 115WB(2); and (ii) whether the word 'residence' in section 115WB(3) must be read as residence in India.
Held: The Supreme Court held that sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 115WB 'operate in different fields' — 115WB(1) charges benefits directly provided as consideration for employment, while 115WB(2) creates a legal fiction deeming certain enumerated expenses to be fringe benefits. The exemption in 115WB(3) is, by its own terms, restricted to sub-section (1) and does NOT extend to the deemed fringe benefits in sub-section (2). On the second issue the Court reversed the AAR: there is nothing in 115WB(3) requiring the employee's residence to be in India, so the words 'in India' cannot be read in; the provision applies even where the employee resides abroad, provided the expenditure is genuinely on transport from residence to place of work and back.
Ratio / Significance: Foundational authority on the architecture of FBT: (a) the deeming provision in 115WB(2) is an independent expansion of charge, not a mere illustration of 115WB(1); (b) an exemption that opens with 'for the purposes of sub-section (1)' cannot be stretched to sub-section (2); (c) a statute must be read as a whole so that no part is rendered otiose; and (d) CBDT's interpretation of its own statute, being executive/contemporanea construction, is ordinarily binding on the Department 'save and except where it violates any provision of law or is contrary to any judgment'. The Court emphasised that FBT was introduced to bring about equity and to avoid double taxation of the same benefit in the hands of both employer and employee.
CBDT Circular No. 8/2005 dated 29 August 2005 (Explanatory Notes on FBT — 'FAQ' Circular)
Nature: Administrative circular issued under section 119 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes; the principal contemporaneous exposition of Chapter XII-H, answering 103 frequently-asked questions on the scope, valuation and machinery of FBT.
Key clarifications: Among other things the Circular states that 115WB(2) provides an 'expansive' definition that enlarges the scope of 115WB(1); that where there is no provision in section 115WC for valuing a particular benefit, that benefit — even if a 'general fringe benefit' under 115WB(1)(a) — is not liable to FBT; that a foreign company is liable to FBT only if it is an 'employer in India' (i.e. has employees based in India); and that sales discounts/rebates to customers or wholesale dealers are selling expenses outside clause (D) of 115WB(2).
Binding effect: Approved in R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 309 (SC), which held that CBDT's interpretation '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.' This follows the settled line that beneficial circulars bind the Revenue — Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC); UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC); CCE v. Dhiren Chemical (2002) 254 ITR 554 (SC).
C-3 Field occupied by the FBT definitions (cognate)
All India Bank Officers' Confederation v. Union of India (Madras High Court) — cognate, on the scope of section 115WB
Context: A writ challenge to section 17(2)(viii) (perquisite valuation), not to the vires of FBT. Noted here only for its observation on Chapter XII-H.
Observation: The Division Bench observed that section 115WB defines 'fringe benefits' only for the purposes of Chapter XII-H — under which the additional income-tax (FBT) was imposed by section 115WA — and that the benefits listed in 115WB 'relate only to the fringe benefit tax chargeable under section 115WA and cannot be extended to section 17(2).' Useful authority that the 115WB definition is self-contained to the FBT code and is not portable to the salary/perquisite provisions.
Caveat: Candidly flagged: this is not an authority on the constitutional validity of FBT; it is cited for its construction of the field occupied by section 115WB.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (text as printed in the Act, the Chapter remaining on the statute book but rendered inapplicable from assessment year 2010-11 onwards by section 115WM). Citations are stated as reported; rulings of the Authority for Advance Rulings and orders of the Tribunal are flagged as such. Where a section has not been judicially construed, that is stated candidly and the nearest governing authority (including the machinery provisions imported by section 115WL) is given. This material is for professional reference and is not legal advice.