9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose on date when option stood exercised was only a notional benefit whose value was unascertainable. The Tribunal was correct in treating the amount received on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights as capital gain as against treated as perquisite under Sec.17(2)(iii) of the I.T. Act and in treating the amount received on exercising the opinion of Employee's Stock Option Plan (EOSP) as long term capital gains instead of treating the same as short term capital gains. However, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that capital gain arose to the assessee on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights which were having no cost of acquisition. - Decided in favour of assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO 14, 6 OF 2014 AND TAX APPEAL NO 1295 OF 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eating the sum of ₹ 20,33,916/- being the amount received on exercising the opinion of Employee's Stock Option Plan (EOSP) as long term capital gains instead of treating the same as short term capital gains? 2. The common facts involved in these appeals are that while filing the return of income, the asssessees made addition of amount received on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights as a perquisite u/s. 17(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The moot question involved in these appeals is as to whether the gain arising out of such transactions is to be considered as short term capital gain or long term capital gain. The Tribunal in these appeals has opined that stock options are capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the employee(s) consequent to the exercise of option amounting to ₹ 6.46 crores on which date the market value of the shares was in all ₹ 171 crores. Therefore, according to the AO, the benefit arose on the date when the options stood exercised. In this case we are concerned with the period prior to 1.4.2000. 12. We also do not find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Department that Section 17(2)(iiia) inserted by Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1.4.2000 was clarificatory and, therefore, retrospective in nature. 15. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [(1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC)] this Court held that the charging section and computation provision under the 1961 Act constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under the head Salaries . 4. Mr. K.M. Parikh, learned advocate on behalf of the Department is not in a position to dispute the above and is not in a position to show and/or point out any contrary decision. 5. Having heard Mr. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Department and Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee and the questions posed for consideration before us reproduced hereinabove and considering the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. (Supra), the questions, which are raised in the present appeals are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. We are not giving further elaborate reasons for the same as in the case of Infosys Techn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
