FM says inflation may hit double digit in March     Authority for Advance Ruling rules the payments made to ABB Research Ltd., Zurich towards the applicant's share of the cost incurred in respect of R&D activities are not liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as business income in the absence of permanent establishment in India, having regard to Art.7 of the Tax Treaty- Nor can it be subjected to tax as royalty or fees for technical services under Article 12 of the Treaty-AIT-2010-94-AAR      Sensex hits 17400 Points in intra day trading    Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3801 and for poppy seeds 4256-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 20     No approval for procurement of service “Rental” of immovable property for office outside the Special Economic Zone/FTWZ can be given-SEZ Instruction No. 49 on Clarifications on FTWZ issues    Consolidated list of default authorized operations which can be undertaken by the developer/approved co-developer by default from the date of notification-SEZ Instruction No.50    Himachal Government hikes VAT from 4 per cent to 5 per cent on all items, except edible oils and foodgrains     Authority for Advance Ruling rules no capital gains accrued or arose at the time of conversion of partnership firm into a private limited company under Part IX of the Companies Act and therefore, notwithstanding the non-compliance with clause (d) of proviso to Section 47(xiii) of the Income Tax Act, by reason of premature transfer of shares, the said company is not liable to pay capital gains tax-AIT-2010-93-AAR      Authority for Advance Ruling rules if the purchasers are non-residents other than the applicant, the applicant is liable to pay tax in India on the amount received by it for the support services rendered through the branch office in India-AIT-2010-92 -AAR      Jurisdiction of Dispute Resolution Panel-Income Tax Order No.3           Employment of washing process in the manufacture of agglomerates etc from imported plastic waste and scrap-SEZ Instruction No.48     Haryana Government imposes surcharge ranging from 0.25 per cent to 0.7 per cent on VAT   Service Tax Notification No. 17/2010 which exempts the taxable service providing packaged or canned software, intended for single use and packed accordingly amended-Service Tax Notification No.18     Procurement, Import and Export of Prohibited and Restricted Goods by SEZ Units-SEZ Instruction No. 47     Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amounts received/receivable by Technopromexport from NTPC under contract for Offshore supply of all plant and equipment including mandatory spares are not liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and DTAA between India and Russia-AIT-2010-79-AAR  
Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home
JUDGMENTS
CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS
SERVICE TAX
INCOME TAX
VAT
FINANCE ACTS
FINANCE BILLS
EOU STPI
SEZ
DGFT
RBI
NTT
RESOURCES


    
Email | Print

Redemption of stock appreciation rights Amount is income: Special Bench

AIT News Network

MUMBAI. Special Bench of ITAT vide a recent ruling AIT-2008-24-ITAT has decided the following significant issue:

“Whether or not the amount received by the assessee employee on redemption of stock appreciation rights constitutes income liable to tax in his hands, irrespective of the fact that no shares or stock are actually allowed to him and that the assessee does not have any rights to receive such shares and stock?”

Special Bench has ruled as under:

  • The amount received by the assessee on redemption of share appreciation rights, as we have noted earlier in this order, is nothing but a deferred wage contingent upon performance of the company’s shares in the market. The very preamble of the scheme, under which share redemption rights have been given to the assessee, also states that it is in the nature of deferred awards related to the increase in the price of the Common Stock of the Company. It is thus that the amount received on redemption of stock appreciation rights is in the nature of consideration for services rendered by the assessee. This amount is in the revenue nature because the consideration for the amount so received is the services rendered by the assessee. In our considered view, therefore, the amount received by the assessee on redemption of stock appreciation rights is in the nature of income.(Para 34)

  • As there is no dispute about the fact the assessee employer had a duty to deduct tax at source in respect of the entire amount taxable under the head ‘income from salaries’ and all the relevant facts were in the notice of the employer, the assessee is entitled to take into account the amount of tax deductible, though not actually deducted. (Para 58)

  • As regards assessee’s plea that the amount in question can only be taxed under the head ‘capital gains’ as the receipt is on account of transfer of a capital asset consisting of right to receive stock appreciation rights, we see no substance in the same for the simple reason that, as we have held earlier in this order and as the very preamble of Procter & Gamble (1983) Stock Plan itself states, the amount in question is in the nature of a fruit of employment related activity which is revenue receipt in nature, and it is only the quantification of this amount which is linked to a capital asset that is value of shares. The taxability is not respect of the stock appreciation right per se but the amount received as a fruit of employment which is mentioned by way of formula envisaged in the stock appreciation rights scheme.(Para 54)

  • The assessee was indeed liable to tax in respect of the amount of Rs. 4,79,13,851 received on redemption of stock appreciation rights. The taxability of this amount is under the head ‘income from salaries’ but the assessee’s plea that the amount in question is received from a person other than the de jure employer, even if it was to be accepted, would not have any material difference to the taxability per se, because, in such an event and following Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case Emil Webber’s case, this amount would have been taxed under the head ‘income from other sources’. (Para 55)

 (Click here for full text of Ruling AIT-2008-24-ITAT)

Related Story:

 

  Copyright © 2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments