{"id":9,"date":"2008-01-09T20:30:16","date_gmt":"2008-01-09T20:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=9"},"modified":"2008-01-09T20:30:16","modified_gmt":"2008-01-09T20:30:16","slug":"infosys-technologies-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/infosys-technologies-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/downloads2\/index.php?infosys_stock_options.pdf\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" border=\"0\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" \/><\/a>(i) A stock option which is subject to a &#8216;lock-in&#8217; is not a chargeable perquisite u\/s 17(2) on the date of grant, vesting or exercise. The benfit is purely notional. <\/p>\n<p>(ii) s. 17(2)(iiia) inserted w.e.f 1.4.2000 is not clarificatory;<\/p>\n<p>(iii) Every &#8220;benefit&#8221; is not chargeable unless it is in the nature of &#8216;income&#8217; or specifically made chargeable;<\/p>\n<p>(iv) Estimation of TDS u\/s 192 in the absence of clear provisions on<br \/>\nvaluation of &#8220;perquisite&#8221; does not justify the department treating the employer as an assessee-in-default. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>(i) A stock option which is subject to a &#8216;lock-in&#8217; 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) &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/infosys-technologies-supreme-court\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court)<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}