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 › Sumit Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench)

Sumit Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 21, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

(i) Amounts received by an assessee from the foreign holding company of his employer company on redemption of stock appreciation rights, being “fruits of employment” is chargeable to tax as “salaries” despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship (ii) there is a fundamental difference between stock options and stock appreciation rights.

See also: CIT vs. Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court)

Related Judgements

  1. Saurabh Srivastava vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) 

    Consideration received by an assessee for agreeing not to compete constitutes a capital receipt even though (i) the period of restraint is only 18 months and (ii) the assessee continued service with the payer-company as Managing Director.
  2. Glenmark Laboratory vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    For purposes of s. 80HHC, the direct cost attributable to the earning of the DEPB license (equal to the value of the license on the date of receipt) has to be reduced from the direct cost of trading goods on … Glenmark Laboratory vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read…
  3. Mayawati vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    s. 68 does not apply to an assessee who does not maintain books of account. Balance sheet/statement of affairs and bank pass book do not constitute ‘books of account’. In considering the genuineness of the “gifts”, it must be borne … Mayawati vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Read More…
  4. Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court) 

    (i) A stock option which is subject to a ‘lock-in’ is not a chargeable perquisite u/s 17(2) on the date of grant, vesting or exercise. The benfit is purely notional. (ii) s. 17(2)(iiia) inserted w.e.f 1.4.2000 is not clarificatory; (iii) … Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court) Read More »
  5. CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta (Supreme Court) 

    S. 158BB has to be read with the relevant Finance Act and the surcharge prescribed therein is applicable to a block assessment. The Proviso to s. 113 of the Act, though inserted by the Finance Act 2002 with effect from … CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta (Supreme…