TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admitted by this Court for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: Tax Appeal No. 14 of 2004 "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in treating the sum of Rs. 6,80,40,724/- being the amount received on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) as capital gain as against treated as perquisite under Sec.17(2)(iii) of the I.T. Act or under Sec. 28(iv) of the Act purportedly on the ground that the employer - employee relationship did exist between the assessee and Procter & Gamble Co., U.S.A. (PG - USA)." Tax Appeal No. 6 of 2004 "Whether in the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that capital gain arose to the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egra in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd reported in (2008) 297 ITR 167 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under. "7. During the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999- 2000 there was no provision in the said 1961 Act which made the benefit by way of ESOP taxable as income specifically. It became specifically taxable only with effect from 1.4.2000 when Section 17(2)(iiia) stood inserted. 9. The question for consideration is whether perquisite could be said to accrue at the time when warrants were granted or at the time when the option vested in the employee or at the time when the options stood ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anner indicated above cannot be read retrospectively unless the Legislature expressly says so. It was not capable of being implemented retrospectively. Till 1.4.2000, in the absence of the definition of the word cost, value of the option was not ascertainable. In our view, clause (iiia) is not clarificatory. Moreover, the meaning of the words specified securities in section (iiia) was defined or explained for the first time vide Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1.4.2000. Moreover, the words allotted or transferred in clause (iiia) made things clear only after 1.4.2000. Lastly, it may be pointed out that even clause (iiia) has been subsequently deleted w.e.f. 1.4.2001. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view the clause (iiia) cannot be read ....