2013 (11) TMI 566 - AT - Income Tax

Interpretation of Sec. 54F: Option Grant Date Determines Exemption Eligibility

Assistant Commissioner of IT Versus Shri Param Paul Uberoi

Assistant Commissioner of IT Versus Shri Param Paul Uberoi - TMI Issues:1. Revenue's appeal against deletion of addition of long term capital gain as short term capital gain.2. Interpretation of provisions under sec. 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Determining the date of acquisition of shares under Employees Stock Option Scheme.4. Application of judicial pronouncements on the acquisition of shares under ESOPs.Analysis:1. The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs.3,31,27,703 by the CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08, treating long term capital gain as short term and denying sec. 54F exemption. The assessee, an individual, exercised stock options in 2006, treated the gain as long term, and deposited it under the Capital Gain Accounts Scheme. The AO denied exemption based on various reasons, including the non-transferability of rights and absence of active role in acquisition. The CIT(A) allowed the claim as long term capital gain.2. The key issue was the interpretation of sec. 54F for exemption eligibility. The assessee claimed the benefit based on the acquisition date of shares under ESOPs. The ITAT analyzed the stock option plan's features, noting a 10-year irrecoverable period, minimum holding period, and cashless exercise. Referring to similar cases, the ITAT upheld the assessee's claim, emphasizing the accrual of rights and deferment of purchase price, leading to long term capital gains taxation.3. The date of acquisition of shares under ESOPs was crucial. The ITAT considered the option grant date as the acquisition date, not the exercise date. Citing precedents and the plan's terms, the ITAT rejected the AO's stance, emphasizing the valuable and transferable rights acquired by the assessee over the years, leading to long term capital gains treatment.4. The application of judicial pronouncements on ESOPs acquisition was pivotal. The ITAT relied on previous decisions, including the Dr. Dhurjati Gupta case, to support the assessee's position on long term capital gains and sec. 54F exemption. By aligning with co-ordinate bench rulings, the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the assessee's entitlement to exemption and treatment of gains as long term capital gains.In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the treatment of long term capital gains and exemption under sec. 54F, emphasizing the acquisition date of shares under ESOPs and the applicability of judicial precedents.