Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
