2013 (10) TMI 1542 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Tax treatment of income from exercising stock options.
2. Eligibility for deduction u/s 54F of the Act.
3. Levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act.
4. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Summary:

1. Tax Treatment of Income from Exercising Stock Options:
The primary issue was whether the income from exercising stock options should be treated as 'Income from Salary' or 'Long Term Capital Gains'. The assessee, a software engineer, received stock options from SIRF, USA while serving as an independent consultant. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the difference between the market price and exercise price on the date of exercise as 'Income from Salary' and the difference between the sale price and market price on the date of exercise as 'Short Term Capital Gains'. The Tribunal upheld the AO's view, stating that the benefit arising from exercising stock options should be treated as part of the salary income, as the stock options were granted in recognition of services rendered. The Tribunal emphasized that the stock options could not be transferred and their exercise did not constitute a transfer of a capital asset, thus rejecting the assessee's claim of long-term capital gains.

2. Eligibility for Deduction u/s 54F of the Act:
The assessee claimed a deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the grounds that the income from exercising stock options was long-term capital gains. The AO and CIT(A) denied this deduction, as the income was treated as salary and short-term capital gains. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the deduction u/s 54F is only available if the gain is considered long-term capital gain, which was not the case here.

3. Levy of Interest u/s 234B of the Act:
The CIT(A) directed the AO not to levy interest u/s 234B of the Act on the income attributable to the benefits from stock options, as the responsibility to deduct tax at source falls on the employer. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the employer, SIRF, USA, was responsible for deducting tax at source, and the assessee could not be penalized for the employer's failure to do so.

4. Imposition of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act:
The AO imposed a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the grounds that the assessee misrepresented the nature of the income and claimed a wrong deduction u/s 54F. The CIT(A) canceled the penalty, stating that the assessee's claim was based on a bona fide belief and different interpretations of the law. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the law regarding the taxation of ESOPs was in a fluid state, and the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and acted in good faith. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Conclusion:
All appeals were dismissed, and the orders of the CIT(A) were upheld, confirming the treatment of income from stock options as salary, denying the deduction u/s 54F, and canceling the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).