Case Law Details
Case Name : Dr. S. Muthian Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)
Related Assessment Year : 2010-11
Courts :
All High Courts Madras High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Dr. S. Muthian Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)
This appeal, filed by the appellant/assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for brevity), is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai, “D” Bench (“the Tribunal” for brevity), dated 16.12.2016 in I.T.A.No.1521/MDs/2015 for assessment year 2010-2011.
2. Facts of the case are as follows:
The assessee was employed in Google India Private Limited. The assessee’s gross taxable income for the assessment year 2010-11 was Rs.76,70,698/- comprising of Rs.7...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
ADMN Any UPDATE since Feb. 2021 ; if any, what was the final outcome ?!
ADMN. ref. February 25, 2021 at 2:29 pm
certain concluding material observations seem to have been omitted/truncated ; pl. check and add !
courtesy
To ADDon:
“4. It was contended that the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 filed by the assessee on 30.07.2011 declaring a taxable income of Rs.75,70,698/- was processed under Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, on 15.03.2012 determining the total income at Rs.1,95,20,410/- by ignoring/disallowing the exempt income of …..”
“7. The above Tax Case Appeal was admitted on the following substantial Questions of law:
(i) Whether THE GAIN ON SALE of stock options in USA that were given to the Indian employee by M/s.Google Inc., USA amounts to perquisites taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not?;
(ii) Whether the amounts shown in Form-16 as Tax Deducted at Source on SUCH PERQUISITES would be the exclusive gain made by the Assessee on such stock options issued by the Holding Company in USA IS SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT IT IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD ‘SALARY’ AS ‘PERQUISITES’ with reference to the provisions under Section 5(1) (c) and 6(6) (a) read with Section 17?;
(iii) Whether such tax can be imposed by the Revenue under Section 143(1) of the Act AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE under Section 143(2) of the Act?”
< FONT (supplied to focus)
Purport or import of Qn. (iii) unclear!
>>>
.
Q
(i) Whether the gain on sale of stock options in USA that were given to the Indian employee by M/s.Google Inc., USA amounts to perquisites taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not?;
(ii) Whether the amounts shown in Form-16 as Tax Deducted at Source on such perquisites would be the exclusive gain made by the Assessee on such stock options issued by the Holding Company in USA is sufficient to hold that it is taxable under the head ‘salary’ as ‘perquisites’ with reference to the provisions under Section 5(1) (c) and 6(6) (a) read with Section 17?; UQ
BEG your Pardon ! Is the point of dispute on taxation of ‘perq’. – the first stage ; or of CG – the second stage? If it be the latter, what is the relevance of FORM 16 (sorry, if me confused!) ?!?
courtesy