9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue; two against the orders passed in the substantive assessment proceedings; and two against the orders passed in the penalty proceedings. 3.The above appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law, vide order dated 23.11.2009. "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in remitting to decide afresh when Bangalore Bench Tribunal order is not applicable to this case, since, the purchase date and date of sale is one and the same and not a long term capital gain? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in passing the order when the assessee has not acquired any shares but only the company in USA has sold the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital gain by considering the date of allotment as the reckoning date for calculation of period. Consequent upon such order, the penalty, which was imposed on the assessee, was also deleted. 8.What is important to note is that the Revenue's case before the Tribunal was that the assessee, in the original return of income, admitted the income as special allowance under the head "salary". Further, the assessee's employer M/s.Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai, vide their letters dated 12.12.2006 and 18.12.2006, addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Salary Range IV, V, VI, Chennai, had stated that the Employees Stock Option Scheme offered by the company to the employees is not in accordance with the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee or otherwise unless and until that question was decided by the Tribunal, the question of remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer does not arise. This so in the light of the specific plea raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal. 12.Thus, we find that the matter should be first adjudicated on facts and the Tribunal should take a decision on the stand taken by the Revenue before it. This is called for because, the CIT(A) did not deal with the said issue while passing the order dated 30.01.2008. Though the CIT(A) states that he finds considerable force in the claim of the assessee, there is no reason to substantiate as to how the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the stand of the assessee that the income relating to stock option ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
