JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. C. Dharmadhikari J.-This appeal was argued on earlier occasion and was placed today for orders. Revenue challenges order dated September 26, 2012, of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. said order was passed on assessee's appeal and relevant assessment year is 2007-08. Mr. Suresh Kumar would submit that question of law which Revenue has formulated at page 5 of paper book is substantial question of law. He would submit that Tribunal has failed to notice that payment made by assessee of Rs. 27,57,12,999 as Tata brand equity contribution can be considered as fringe benefit. assessee-company had itself considered this contribution as sales promotion expenses. If company to which payment was made organises promotional activities and assists group companies such as assessee in locating buyers, etc., then that is squarely falling within purview of provisions enabling recovery of fringe benefit tax. Tribunal has only relied upon order passed by it earlier and further upon circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes being Circular No. 8 of 2005, dated August 29, 2005. foundation or basis on which Tribunal rested its conclusion is erroneous and there is no requirement as is read in said provisions. In any event, employer-employee relationship can be culled out if facts and circumstances placed before Tribunal had been noted in proper perspective. Therefore, he submits that appeal be entertained and admitted. On other hand, Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of assessee, submits that Tata brand equity and business promotion agreement dated April 19, 2004, has been perused by Tribunal. reading thereof would indicate as to how payments towards subscription fees had been made and by group companies or various members who are part and signatories to agreement. In circumstances, circular has been rightly relied upon and equally material in possession of Revenue itself would indicate that fringe benefit tax came to be introduced to tax employer on value of benefits provided or deemed to have been provided to employees. circular only reiterates this position. It is understanding of Tribunal based on reading of provisions. In such circumstances, that cannot be termed as erroneous or vitiated by any error of law apparent on face of record enabling this court to entertain appeal. Therefore, it should be dismissed. What Revenue highlights before us is fact that assessee- company is engaged in business of rendering technical consultancy services marketing of software and hardware products and also export of software. assessee-company filed its return of income on October 29, 2007. In return, assessee-company claimed expenses and of payment made to M/s. Tata Sons towards Tata brand equity contribution which assessee-company had included under head "sales promotion". assessee-company submitted that Tata Brand equity contribution was not sales promotion and, hence, should be excluded while computing value of fringe benefits. Assessing Officer included these expenses for value of fringe benefit tax as claim of assessee could not be entertained without filing of revised return. His order dated December 8, 2009, came to be challenged by assessee-company before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed this appeal on February 24, 2011. Tribunal found, upon reading of order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), that fringe benefit tax was brought in for purposes of taxing certain See [2005] 277 ITR (St.) 20. benefits which are derived and during course of employment. Tribunal has found that Act was amended and Chapter XII-H came to be inserted by Finance Act, 2005, with effect from April 1, 2006. In section 115W definitions of term "employer" and term "fringe benefit tax" means tax chargeable under section 115WA has been inserted. By section 115WA, charge of fringe benefit tax has been set out and for every assessment year commencing on or after first day of April, 2006. Additional income-tax referred to as fringe benefit tax in respect of fringe benefits provided or deemed to have been provided by employer to his fringe benefits provided or deemed to have been provided by employer to his employee during previous year at rate of thirty per cent. on value of such fringe benefits has to be charged. By sub-section (2) of section 115WE it is clarified that notwithstanding no income-tax is payable by employer on his total income computed in accordance with provisions of this Act tax on fringe benefits shall be payable by such employer. By section 115WB, term "fringe benefits" has been defined to mean any consideration for employment provided by way of privileges, service facility or amenity, any free or concessional tickets, any contribution by employer to approved superannuation fund for employees and/ or such benefits extended and set out in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of that section. By sub-section (2) of that section fringe benefits shall be deemed to have been provided by employer to his employees, if employer has, in course of his business or profession (including any activity whether or not such activity is carried on with object of deriving income profits or gains) incurred any expenses on or made any payment for purposes and which have been set out in clauses (A) to (Q) of subsection (2) of section 115WB. Thus, for purpose of further clarity, by sub-section (3), it has been stated that for purposes of sub-section (1), privilege, service facility or amenity does not include perquisites in respect of which tax is paid or payable by employee or any benefit of amenity in nature of free or subsidised transport or any such allowance provided by employer to his employee for journeys by employees from their residence to place of work or such place of work to place of residence. value of fringe benefits and all other provisions need not be referred to. We are of opinion, after reading of these provisions that Legislature always had in mind relationship of employer-employee and by virtue of which, these benefits are admissible to employees. They could be under several heads and nomenclature attached to it would not be decisive provided nature thereof is falling within above quoted provisions. In present case, Tribunal made reference extensively to provision and to understanding of same by Revenue itself. While it is true that it is duty of court of law to interpret and construe provision and in construction thereof, court shall not be guided by any opinion or view of Executive or Revenue, however, when argument before us is that there is no basis for conclusion that these benefits and which are taxable arise out of employer- employee relationship that we were shown requisite material and produced before Tribunal. Firstly, Tribunal had before it agreement and which had been executed. That is styled as Tata brand equity and business promotion agreement dated April 19, 2004. That is between Tata Sons Ltd. and assessee before us. That indicates as to how new competitive environment created by liberalisation and globalisation of trade and industry has brought about radical transformation of business scene and it has become imperative for individual Tata companies wherever and to extent possible to pool their resources and make co-operative effort to promote united common TATA branch which, collectively , would match brand equity of well known international brand names. There is reference made to goodwill and brand awareness attached to TATA name/mark and which proprietor proposes to further systematically develop, promote and enhance in order to provide collective strength of Tatas to businesses of individual Tata companies and add value to their businesses as well as legally protect TATA brand. That is why this agreement proposes scheme and its signatory thereto, viz., assessee would have to abide by code of conduct which is required to be followed in all its dealings. As long as there is association with TATA name and that association is desired to be continued then enhancement and preservation of that brand by signatory is contemplated. That is why term "subscriber" appears therein and assessee before us subscribes to this scheme and use and associate itself with TATA name, marks and marketing in respect of subscriber's products and services or other use and comply with code. That is how subscription to scheme and on terms and conditions set out has been agreed upon. We do not find that complete reading of such agreement and with recitals, sub-recitals and relevant clauses would enable anybody to conclude that fringe benefit tax would be leviable and chargeable on amount paid as subscription under this agreement. It is in that context and in backdrop of such agreement that Tribunal referred to Revenue's circular. circular which has been carrying forward object and purpose of introducing and levying such tax denotes that taxation of perquisites or fringe benefits provided by employer to his employees, in addition to perks or wages paid is subject to varying treatment in different countries. These benefits are either taxed in hands of employees themselves or value of such benefits is subject to fringe benefit tax in hands of employer. rationale for levying fringe benefit tax on employer lies in inherent difficulty in isolating personal element where there is collective enjoyment of such benefits and attributing same directly to employee. This is so especially where expenditure incurred by employer is ostensibly for purposes of business, but includes in partial measure, benefit of personal nature. Moreover, in cases where employer directly reimburses employee for expenses incurred, it becomes difficult to effectively capture true extent of perquisite provided because of problem of cash flow in hands of employer. That is how tax was conceived of, introduced and then, what we find is that Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 8 of 2005, copy of which has been placed on records, indicates that objective of taxing perquisites or fringe benefits is justified both on grounds of equity and economic efficiency. benefits and which are not individually attributed to employees, particularly in cases where benefit is collectively enjoyed and widespread practice of providing perquisites wherein many perquisites are disguised as reimbursements or other miscellaneous expenses so as to enable employees to escape/reduce their tax liability and difficulty in valuation of benefits are essential reasons which enabled Legislature to step in. We need not make detailed reference to this circular. Suffice it to note Budget Speech of Minister of Finance while presenting Budget for year 2005-06, Explanatory Notes and circulars have been rightly understood by Tribunal to mean that basis of tax is benefits or perquisites which emanate out of employer-employee relationship. That is pre-requisite and for levy of fringe benefit tax. Tribunal, in paragraph 8 and paragraph 9 has concluded that in present facts and circumstances, no such case as would enable charging fringe benefit tax emerges. subscription amount has been paid as per contractual agreement between assessee and M/s. Tata Sons Ltd. invoices raised by M/s. Tata Sons Ltd. are for services provided and there is no employer-employee relationship between parties. We do not find that such conclusion is perverse. Mr. Andhyarujina is, therefore, right in relying on materials which have been handed in to us and which find place equally in Tribunal's order. Those have been referred to and in relevant factual backdrop so also on perusal of agreement in its entirety, that Tribunal concluded that there is no merit in Revenue's appeal. We are of opinion that Tribunal's order based on above material is neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on face of record. This appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU) v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd