SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 4460

M.JAICHANDREN
K. Parthasarathy – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax VII – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:S. Thiruvengadam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T. Pramod Kumar Chopra, Advocate.

ORDER

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 sala





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top