Introducing the βIn Favour Ofβ filter in Case Laws.
- βοΈ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- π Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws β


Just a moment...
Introducing the βIn Favour Ofβ filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws β


Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
The Delhi High Court addressed the issue of whether a one-time payment made on behalf of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) formed part of the salary perquisite u/s 17(2)(vi). The court held that the payment was not linked to the exercise of stock options by the employee and was a voluntary payment, not arising from any legal or contractual obligation. As the employee had not exercised the stock options, the amount received did not constitute income chargeable to tax. The court set aside the order treating the amount as a perquisite, allowing the petitioner to seek a refund of TDS amount from the Revenue due to the transaction date having passed.