The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'perquisite' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the context of the Employee Stock Option scheme.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. It has been stated that the petitioner is working, as an Accounts Executive, in Infosys Technology Limited, Chennai, and he is an assesee on the files of the second respondent. The petitioner had filed the original return of income, for the assessment year 1999-2000, on 25.6.1999, and the return filed by the petitioner had been duly processed by the Assessing Officer concerned.

3. It has been further stated that the employer had deducted tax at source, from the salary of the petitioner and it had been remitted to the department, as per the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, based on the demand raised by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Bangalore, on 7.10.1999, for the failure to deduct tax at source, in respect of perquisite value of stock options allotted to its employees, who were covered under the employees Stock Option scheme, the necessary tax had been paid, under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the interest thereon. Accordingly, the tax amount had been deducted from the salary of the petitioner and it had been deposited in the department account, on 24.12.1999.

4. It has been further stated that the demand raised by the Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, TDS, Bangalore, had been challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV, Bangalore. The said appeal had been rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by an order, dated 12.9.2000. Thereafter, a further appeal had been filed by the petitioner, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in I.T.A.No.818-820/2000. An order had been passed by the appellate Tribunal, on 28.6.2002, holding that allotting of shares to employees did not amount to a perquisite and therefore, there was no liability under the Act to deduct tax at source. The said order had been challenged by the department, before the Karnataka High Court, and thereafter, before the Apex Court. However, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, had been confirmed. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amounts deducted from his salary, as tax, along with the interest accrued thereon.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that this Court had passed a number of orders directing the respondent Department to refund the amounts deducted as tax, along with the interest accrued thereon. He had placed copies of such orders before this Court in support of his claims. One such order is, dated 1.4.2010, made in W.P.No.5860 of 2010. He had also placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 23.12.2011, in a batch of cases, in W.A.Nos.1542 and 2161 of 2010 etc. (batch), confirming the orders passed by a learned single judge of this Court directing the refund of the amounts paid by the assessees, as tax, with the interest payable thereon, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It had also been pointed out that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 23.12.2011, had become final and it had been given effect to, by the respondent Department.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not refuted the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

7. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 19.1.2007. Consequently, the second and the third respondents are directed to refund the tax amount of Rs.1,68,546/-, to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, with regard to the claim of the petitioner, for the payment of interest accrued on the said amount, it would be open to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the authority concerned. On such application being