Redemption of stock appreciation rights Amount is income: Special Bench

the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the second reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated and thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings-the proceedings initiated by the AO for the second time under Section 147 is barred by limitation-even the proviso to Section 147 does not come into play on the facts of the case-AIT-2010-373-HC Even if the goods belong to same entry, manufacture does take place if new identifiable/marketable goods known in market emerge due to operation conducted-the process of ironing applied to the stiched brassieres prior to their packing was a process incidental to the completion of the brassieres as a manufactured product-process of purification and filtration being incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of a marketable product, the Respondent was entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs involved-AIT-2010-370-HC Larger Bench of CESTAT rules the Tribunal has ample power to condone the delay in filing the appeal including the one filed under section 35 E (4)-AIT-2010-372-CESTAT Corruption in IRS takes its toll-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Dhananjay Kumar arrested by CBI in Mumbai-Joint Commissioner of Customs & Excise Hemant Kothikar also arrested by CBI FM directs expediting of Cadre Restructuring in CBDT & CBEC Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3924-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 78 Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court Justice Ranjan Gogoi to be Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court Anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylic Fibre originating in, or exported from Japan and Belarus-Customs Tariff Notification No.85 Prescribing SION for new product “Propylene” under Chemical & Allied Products Group-DGFT PN 7 Inclusion of Finished Leather in the Focus Product Scheme of FTP-DGFT PN 6 Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 47.25 per US Dollar and Rs 60.35 per EURO-Exchange Rate for export goods is Rs 46.30 per US Dollar and Rs 58.70 per EURO-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 77-Click on Exchange Rate for details Anti Dumping Duty under the Notification No.15/2007 is not applicable to Spandex Yarn (Elastomeric yarn)-Customs Circular No.30 Import of goods under Notification No.13/2010 for Commonwealth Games, 2010-Customs Circular No.31 Larger Bench of CESTAT rules charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-service by dealers from buyers of the cars to be included in the assessable value of cars for payment of excise duty-AIT-2010-366-CESTAT merely because there was non accounting of goods, penalty was technical and inference of clandestine removal was not called for-AIT-2010-365-HC ITAT rules provision for doubtful debts and provision for standard debts are to be taken into consideration for computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act-AIT-2010-361-ITAT HC rules slitting of aluminum foils into customized width, mounting the same on the printing machine and thereafter printing the necessary text thereon is covered for 80IB benefit as it falls within the ambit of the term “produce”-AIT-2010-363-HC Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Coumarin, originating in, or exported from China-Customs Tariff Notification No. 82 Special Bench of ITAT Ruling-where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract-AIT-2010-355-ITAT-SB

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

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: