2009 (1) TMI 396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. DEEPAK VERMA J. - Sri M. V. Seshachala, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants. Kum. Saina Mary Thomas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated July 31, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Trib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vour of the employees of the assessee-company divested the assessee-company of its obligation to deduct the TDS. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that section 17(2)(iiia) of the Act was not clarificatory in nature and was not applicable to the current assessment year." 4. However, learned counsel for the parties have not disputed that the questions, which have been projected in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nature of income or specifically included by the Legislature as part pf income, the same is not taxable. In this case, the shares could not be obtained by the employees till the lock-in- period was over. On the facts, we hold that in the absence of legislative mandate a potential benefit could not be considered as 'income' of the employee(s) chargeable under the head 'Salaries'. The stock was non-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons, we are of the view that the Department had erred in treating Rs. 165 crores as the perquisite value for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. During those years, the fifth anniversary had not taken place and, therefore, it was not possible for the assessee-company to estimate the value of the perquisite during that period, it was not open to the Department to ignore the lock-in....