Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The compensation received by the petitioner for diminution in value of ESOPs is a perquisite taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961, not a capital receipt. To determine the value of the perquisite, the benefit received by the employee from the specified security should be ascertained. Since no payment was made by the petitioner towards ESOPs and the ESOPs continue to be retained, the entire compensation received qualifies as a perquisite liable to be taxed under the head "salaries". The petitioner is not entitled to a 'nil' certificate of deduction of tax at source. Although the basis for the conclusion in the impugned order is flawed, the rejection of the request for a 'nil' certificate is affirmed.
The compensation received by the petitioner for diminution in value of ESOPs is a perquisite taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961, not a capital receipt. To determine the value of the perquisite, the benefit received by the employee from the specified security should be ascertained. Since no payment was made by the petitioner towards ESOPs and the ESOPs continue to be retained, the entire compensation received qualifies as a perquisite liable to be taxed under the head "salaries". The petitioner is not entitled to a 'nil' certificate of deduction of tax at source. Although the basis for the conclusion in the impugned order is flawed, the rejection of the request for a 'nil' certificate is affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
