2020 (3) TMI 473 - HC - Income Tax

Salary receipt - receipt pertaining to redemption of stock appreciation rights (SARs) - whether amount can be assessed as salary income in the hands of a person when received from a person other than his employer? - absence of an employer - employee relationship - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer himself had recorded in the assessment order that the petitioner had redeemed the SARs during the financial year 1997-98 relating to the assessment year 1998-99 which is prior to insertion of clause (iiia) to Section 17(2) of the Act w.e.f 1.4.2000. Therefore, the said amount could not have been treated as a perquisite to be included as income under the head salaries and taxed accordingly. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat V. Patel 2015 (2) TMI 761 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT we answer the substantial questions of law framed in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of tax consequences of SARs and stock options under Notification No. 323/2001.
2. Assessment of SARs redemption under the head 'salary.'
3. Taxability of amount received from a person other than the employer as salary income.
4. Taxation of receipts under the head 'income from other sources' in the absence of employer-employee relationship.
5. Applicability of assessing the impugned receipt under the head 'capital gains.'

Analysis:

1. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the distinction between SARs and stock options, their tax consequences, and the applicability of Notification No. 323/2001. The Supreme Court had previously ruled in favor of the assessee in a similar case, setting a precedent.

2. The petitioner received SARs from their employer, which were construed as taxable income by the Assessing Officer under the head 'income from salaries.' The first appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal, after referring conflicting decisions, held that all receipts related to employment should be treated as salary income. However, the Supreme Court's decision in a related case clarified that such benefits could not be considered income chargeable under the head 'income from salaries.'

4. The Gujarat High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court rejected the revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the SARs redemption amount received by the petitioner, an employee, could not be taxed as income from salaries due to the absence of a statutory provision for retrospective application.

5. The Assessing Officer's acknowledgment that the SARs were redeemed before the insertion of relevant provisions in the Income Tax Act confirmed that the amount could not be treated as a perquisite under 'salaries.' Following the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeal without costs.