Redemption of stock appreciation rights Amount is income: Special Bench

Refined or white sugar, imported upto 31st December 2010 exempted from Customs duty-Customs Tariff Notification No.8 excise exemption notification for Jammu & Kashmir modified-Central Excise Tariff Notification No.1 Air India may lower retirement age to 55 to cut cost Board of Approval to decide fate of denotification of Essar's Hazira SEZ on 11th February Revenue's comments on 1st Discussion Paper on GST-click on the link below for details SC rules service of notice on the assessee under Section 143(2) within the prescribed period of time is a pre-requisite for framing the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961-AIT-2010-43-SC HC rules assessee is entitled to benefit under Income Tax on delayed payment of PF if the payment is made before the return is filed-AIT-2010-42-HC Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amount received by the foreign company from the Government of Tamil Nadu under the contract is essentially in the nature of “fees for technical services” within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12.4 of DTAA and cannot be regarded as consideration for the sale of designs and drawings-AIT-2010-38-AAR Authority for Advance Ruling rules payment received by the applicant from VARs (“third party re-sellers”) on account of supplies of software products to the end-customers (from whom the licence fee is collected and appropriated by VAR) does not result in income in the nature of royalty to the applicant and moreover payments received by the applicant cannot be taxed as business profits in India in the absence of permanent establishment as envisaged by Article 7 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty-AIT-2010- 36-AAR lending or borrowing money between two associated enterprises comes within the ambit of international transaction and whether the same is at arms length price has to be considered-The question of rate of interest on the borrowing loan is an integral part of arms length price redetermination in this context-AIT-2010-37-ITAT Export and Import of Currency-RBI Circular No.30 HC rules a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable for questioning reopening of the assessment in a case such as this where the preconditions for the exercise of the power have not been fulfilled-recourse to the power under Section 147 cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion, there being no failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for assessment-AIT-2010-35-HC Definitive Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Carbon Black used in rubber applications falling under sub heading 2803 00 10, originating in, or exported from, Australia, China PR, Russia and Thailand-Customs Tariff Notification No.6 Tariff Value for import of Brass scrap is 3597 and for poppy seeds 4392-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10 Adjustment of “Advance Tax in respect of Fringe Benefits” for Assessment Year 2010-11 against “Advance Tax”-Income Tax Circular No.2 CBDT clarifies it is the choice of the assessee whether to file an objection before the Dispute Resolution panel against the draft assessment order or not to exercise this option and file an appeal later before CIT (Appeals) against the assessment order passed by the AO

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: