Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
