9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 186 - AT - Income TaxSale of ESOP shares - LTCG or STCG - Date of acquisition - date of allotment - Held that - the assessee s claim of taxability of gains on the transfer of such rights under the head long term capital gains is justified and deserves to be accepted. - If we accept AO s stand then there will be no capital gain; if the date of allotment of share and sale thereof is the same the price of purchase of shares cannot be the price paid for right which is not held as purchase which becomes unascertainable. According to AO the earlier right of allotment does not constitute a purchase of shares and thus leads to a presumptive situation. In that case as rightly observed by the ITAT in the case of Bomi S. Billimoria (2009 -TMI - 59450 - ITAT BOMBAY) the purchase price will be unascertainable. If we apply the case of Dhurjati Gupta (2009 -TMI - 66827 - ITAT HYDERABAD) then allotment constitutes new right of purchase and the price will be same as the sale consideration. In both situations there will be no taxability. - The right of shares constitute capital assets and the gains should be taxed as Long Term Capital Gains as the holding period is more than 3 years. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of the case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Classification of capital gains from ESOPs as short-term or long-term. 3. Charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of the Case under Section 147: The assessee raised concerns about the legality and validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147. However, during the hearing, the assessee did not press these grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected these grounds. 2. Classification of Capital Gains from ESOPs: The primary issue was whether the gains from the sale of ESOP shares should be treated as long-term or short-term capital gains. - Facts and Background: The assessee, an employee of M/s Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd., was granted rights in shares of Pepsico Inc. ESOP stock on various dates. The shares were sold on 25-2-2004, and the assessee claimed the resultant gains as long-term capital gains, arguing that the rights were held for more than three years. - AO's Stand: The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the shares were held by a trustee (Barry Group at Merrill Lynch USA) and were never transferred to the assessee. The AO held that since the shares were allotted and sold on the same date, the gains should be treated as short-term capital gains. - CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, relying on the ITAT decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Jaswinder Singh Ahuja, which stated that the date of exercising the option is the date of acquisition for determining the nature of the capital gains. - Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that the rights in the ESOP shares were acquired on the date of acceptance of the offer (various dates from 1995 to 2000), and thus, the gains should be classified as long-term. The assessee cited various ITAT decisions, including ACIT Vs. Dr. Dhurjati Gupta, which supported the view that the date of grant of the stock option is material for determining the period of holding. - Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had acquired a valuable right to the shares when the ESOP options were granted. The shares were held in trust, and the only benefit was the deferment of the purchase price until the shares were sold. The Tribunal found that the right to the shares constituted a capital asset and that the gains from the sale of these rights, held for more than three years, should be classified as long-term capital gains. - Conclusion: The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities' decisions, holding that the gains were long-term capital gains. The Tribunal emphasized that if the AO's stand were accepted, there would be no capital gains as the purchase price and sale price would be the same on the same day. 3. Charging of Interest under Section 234B: The issue of charging interest under Section 234B was deemed consequential. The AO was instructed to recalculate the interest, if any, while giving effect to the appellate order. General Ground: The general ground raised by the appellant was found to be general in nature and required no adjudication. Outcome: The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee on the classification of capital gains and directing the AO to recalculate interest under Section 234B.
|
