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

Home › All Judgements › Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court)

Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

(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) Every “benefit” is not chargeable unless it is in the nature of ‘income’ or specifically made chargeable;

(iv) Estimation of TDS u/s 192 in the absence of clear provisions on
valuation of “perquisite” does not justify the department treating the employer as an assessee-in-default.

Related Posts:

  • Celltick Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Indian subsidiary of the assessee had for A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y 2019-20 entered into an "APA‟ with the CBDT. As is discernible from the "APA‟, the functions of the subsidiary company inter alia included "marketing and sale of various software solutions" of the assessee company. As per the "APA‟…
  • Aricent Technologies Holdings Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In terms of section 205 of the Act, the assessee/deductee cannot be called upon to pay tax, to the extent to which tax had been deducted from the payments due. Consequently, it follows that credit for such tax deducted at source, which is deducted from the account of the deductee,…
  • In Re: Guidelines For Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic… Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus. The scaling down conventional operations within the precincts of courts is a measure in that direction. Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the…
  • Raj Pal Singh vs. CIT (Supreme Court) For chargeability of income-tax, the income ought to have either arrived or accrued. In the matter of acquisition of land under the Act of 1894, taking over of possession before arrival of relevant stage for such taking over may give rise to a potential right in the owner of the…
  • UOI vs. P. D. Sunny (Supreme Court) There shall be ex-parte ad-interim stay of the impugned judgment and order(s) passed in the aforesaid writ petitions and of further proceedings before the High Court(s), in view of the stand taken by the Government of India through learned Solicitor General, before us, that the Government is fully conscious of…
  • Ramnath & Co vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1, when applied to incentive provisions like those for deduction, would also be that the burden lies on the assessee to prove its applicability to his case; and if there be any ambiguity in the deduction…

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…