2010 (3) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-tax considered the claim of the petitioner as regards the assessability in respect of perquisite value of stock options allotted to the petitioner as an employee of Infosys Technologies Ltd., Bangalore. The petitioner submitted that they were covered by the Employees Stock Option (ESOP) Scheme of the company, consequently, deduction of TDS on the allotment is bad in law. It is seen that the employer-company had paid the demand of Rs. 49,52,35,650 under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, along with interest at Rs. 4,82,85,475 under section 201(1A)) of the Income-tax Act based on the demand raised by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS, Bangalore, on October 7, 1993, for failure to deduct tax at source in respect of per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he perquisite value of stocks under the ESOP Scheme. The Commissioner directed the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the condonation as regards the refund was considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax only to direct the first respondent to decide the issue. The first respondent although accepted the stand of the petitioner, yet held that the amount collected from Infosys Technologies Ltd. should be refunded only to that company and the employees of the company should approach the company to get their refund along with the interest in the circumstances, the Commissioner pointed out even if the refund has to be allowed, the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest on the refund amount....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f amount deducted by way of TDS does not arise. If the tax was not paid by the petitioner as an individual, but by her company, in response to the demand by the Income- tax Department, the question of refund to the petitioner does not arise. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. It is not denied by the respondents that on account of the claim made by the Department, the employer had paid the tax in respect of the ESOP Scheme applicable to the petitioner. With the liability on the company thus set aside, rightly, the petitioner made a claim for refund of the tax deducted to the account of the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the asse....