Bombay H.C : Where entire amount received by assessee was taxable under head ‘Income from salaries’, assessee would be entitled to take into account amount of tax deductible though not actually deducted and in that case no interest would be levied under section 234B

High Court Of Bombay

CIT vs. Anil Kumar Nehru

Assessment Year : 2002-03

Section : 234B

S.C. Dharmadhikari And G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.

IT Appeal No. 2072 Of 2011

April 15, 2014


1. Having heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at great length and perusing with his assistance the order under challenge, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not deserve admission. Despite the persuasive ability at his command, Mr. Suresh Kumar could not convince us that this appeal raises a substantial question of law. Here is a case of a salaried employee and when he was so employed by the employer, Pfizer India Ltd., he received rights under the stock option grant from the parent company of his employer. They were granted in 1991 and in subsequent years. The assessee sold those rights during the year under consideration, namely, the assessment year 2002-03. The appellant only held the rights under this stock option grant and could not have held any shares due to the exchange control restrictions prevalent at the time of acquiring and holding foreign securities by any resident Indian. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that he never held any shares. It is in these circumstances that during the year under consideration, the long-term capital gain was worked out. The Assessing Officer assessed this amount as perquisite under the head “Salary” on sub-stantive basis. That is the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in the case of prior assessment years. The objections were filed and, thereafter, what the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has done is that, he followed the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 in the case of the very assessee and the order dated March 28, 2008, in that behalf. However, the Tribunal has partly allowed ground No. 3 of the assessee and held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sumit Bhattacharya v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 112 ITD 1 (Mum.). Similar view was taken in the case of the very assessee by the Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No. 352/Mum/2008, vide order dated December 23, 2008. It is, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the present appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

[Citation : 364 ITR 26]