9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allotted as per the stock option plan. It cannot be said here that hands of the Assessing Officer were tied and he could not have gone into the question of date of allotment and should have been treated the date of vesting as the date of allotment. There is no such observation or finding by the tribunal. In view of the concession made by the both sides, tribunal had not examined and answered any aspect on merits. The Assessing Officer has specifically gone into the question as to when the allotment has taken place i.e. the date of allotment as per the stock option plan. He had made observations in this regard and recorded his findings. The first appellate authority and tribunal have not gone into the said aspect and merits. We answer th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort term capital gain and made an addition of ₹ 94,12,649/-. CIT (Appeals), however, accepted the plea of the assessee. On further appeal by the Revenue, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer by giving the following directions:- 7. We have given careful thought to the rival submissions of the parties. There is no dispute on the amount of capital gain liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The dispute is whether capital gain of ₹ 94,12,649/- is short term or long term capital gain. The assessee has given the dates of acquisition of bonus shares which were sold and on which capital gain in dispute accrued to the assesse. The dates are given on page 9 of the paper book and have been reproduced above. Duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer could not have examined the question, when allotment of share had taken place. 7. Revenue once again preferred an appeal before the tribunal, who by the impugned order after quoting the relevant paragraph of their earlier order, have upheld the findings recorded by the CIT (Appeals), observing that only a limited remand order was passed for the purpose of verification of the dates of vesting and not to verify the date of allotment. The exact reasoning given by the tribunal in the impugned order reads as under:- 8. As correctly observed by the ld. CIT (A), the matter was restored only for the limited purpose of verification of dates referred to in Annexure 9, as reproduced in the Tribunal order. This is the ves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dates of allotment of shares. While examining the said aspect, the Assessing Officer had to go into the question as to when the shares were actually allotted as per the stock option plan. It cannot be said here that hands of the Assessing Officer were tied and he could not have gone into the question of date of allotment and should have been treated the date of vesting as the date of allotment. There is no such observation or finding by the tribunal. In view of the concession made by the both sides, tribunal had not examined and answered any aspect on merits. The Assessing Officer has specifically gone into the question as to when the allotment has taken place i.e. the date of allotment as per the stock option plan. He had made observation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
