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

A.D.JAIN, J.SUDHAKAR REDDY
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax – Appellant
Versus
Ambrish Kumar Jhamb – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Pirthi Lal,Salil Kapoor, Vikas Jain

ORDER

J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi, dt. 30th June, 2011 pertaining to asst. yr. 2006-07 on the following grounds :

"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the case of the assessee falls under Expln. 1 to cl. (d) or cl. (e) of section 2(42A) of the IT Act, 1961 as against the AO holding that the gain from sale of ESOP was chargeable as short-term capital gain ignoring the fact that as per ruling in the case of Girdhar Kirshna M. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 117 TTJ (Bang.) 965 with regard to the capital gain, date of grant and vesting are irrelevant because they do not result in any share acquisition."

2. The facts of the case are as brought out in the AO's order as follows :

"In this case, assessee was given ESOP by Gillette Co. In his submissions and ESOP plan it has been observed that these ESOPs are cashless. Assessee has to pay nothing on exercise of ESOP. The assessee has been granted ESOP in earlier years without any cost. On the date of exercise the amount under ESOP to the assessee was deducted from the sale proceeds and the d

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