CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

297 ITR 167Supreme Court of India2008#924 most cited

What is CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. authority for?

Allotment of shares to employees under an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) before April 1, 2000, is not a taxable perquisite if the benefit's value is unascertainable at the time of option exercise due to conditions like a lock-in period.

115

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. · Infosys Technologies Ltd. · ESOP · Employee Stock Option Plan · section 17(2) · section 17 · perquisite value · share allotment · pre-Finance Act 1999 · unascertainable benefit · lock-in period

Also reported as

166 Taxmann 204

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40(a)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 17(2)(vi)Section 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 17(2)(iiia)section 2(15a)perquisite valuesection 17(2)section 17fees for included servicesmercantile system of accountingprofits and gains of business or professionsection 9(1)(vii)section 201section 30section 194a

Judgments citing CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 403/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…rse services, the deposit is to be refunded. The concept of non-refundable is only relevant till the services of golf course are available to the members. 12.3 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd., 297 ITR 167 (SC), he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that unless a benefit/receipt is made taxable, it cannot be regarded as ‘income’. He accordingly submitted that even on merit refundable security deposit is not taxable during the year. 12.4 Without prejudice to the above, the ld. counsel for the assessee in the a…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Umesh Upadhyay, New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, Cross

ITA 4054/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs Income-Tax Officer, Shri Umesh Upadhyay Ward-33 (4), New Delhi. C-9/8273, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaapu4438N

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 17(2)Section 28Section 56(2)

…fic without any financial back up data to justify the valuation. 15. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the submission on behalf of the assessee that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Infosys Technology Ltd. (2008) 297 ITR 167 (SC) wherein the issue involved was that whether allotment of Sweat Equity Shares to an employee is a perquisite or not and it was held that where the lock in period was involved, the perquisite would be treated only in the year in which the lock in period ends. Since in this case the agreement came to an end, shares were surrendered and the entr…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…sel, there was no such contract in the instant case and, therefore, the transaction would not qualify for ‘transfer’ under the Act. 5.11 The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 297 ITR 167 (SC), wherein it is held that unless the benefit is made taxable, it cannot be regarded as income. 5.12 To support the contention that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in taking the value as per stamp duty valuation, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT, (2015) 372 ITR…

Moni Kumar Subba, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3982/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…sel, there was no such contract in the instant case and, therefore, the transaction would not qualify for ‘transfer’ under the Act. 5.11 The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 297 ITR 167 (SC), wherein it is held that unless the benefit is made taxable, it cannot be regarded as income. 5.12 To support the contention that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in taking the value as per stamp duty valuation, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT, (2015) 372 ITR…

Add. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharat V. Patel

Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving

C.A. No.-004380-004380 - 2018Supreme Court24 Apr 2018

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Being No. Cab/I­643/2000­2001. After Considering The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 28.03.2002, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Respondent After Comprehensively Discussing The Taxability Of The Alleged Amount & Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iii)

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4380 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24888 OF 2015) Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax .... Appellant(s) Versus Bharat V. Patel .... Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No. 4381 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25001 OF 2015 J U D G M E N T R.K.Agrawal, J 1) Leave granted. 2) These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Tax Appeal Nos. 6 and 14 of 2004…

DCIT Cir. 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. People Interactive (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5132/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5132 & 5133/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 &2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: ShriR. S. Samria, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. R. C. SHARMA, AM & SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5132 & 5133/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 &2011-12) People Interactive (I) Pvt. DCIT Cir -7 (3) (2) Room No. 669A, 6th Ltd. बिधम/ 205, Shiv E Numh, 2nd Floor, AayakarBhavan, M. Vs. Floor, Dr. Annie Besant k. road, Mumbai-400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAECS7931B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen, DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : ShriR. S. Samria, AR सुनवाईकीतारी…

Fractal Analytics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1024/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 37(1)

…t of 17 ITA No.1024/Mum/2017. M/s.Fractal Analytics Private Limited remuneration to the employees would be only the amount of actual discounted premium at the time of exercise of option. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2008] 297 ITR 167/116 Taxman 204 held that the allotment of shares to employees under ESOP, subject to a lock in period of five years and other conditions could not be treated as a perquisite as there was no benefit and the value of benefit, if any, was unascertainable at the time when options were exercised. [Para 11.1.4] ■ From the provisions of section 17(2), t…

M/S. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-15(1), New Delhi Religare Finvest Ltd., D-3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan : Aafcs6801H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 28.02.2013, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 28Section 36Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…he vesting period. In such a scenario, the actual amount of remuneration to the employees would be only the amount of actual discounted premium at the time of exercise of option. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2008] 297 ITR 167/166 Taxman 204 relevant to the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 has held that the allotment of shares to employees under ESOP subject to a lock in period of five years and other conditions could not be treated as a perquisite as there was no benefit and the value of benefit, if any, was unascertainable at the time when options were exercised…

M/S. Religare Commodities Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the disallowance made by the Ld

ITA 2283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishireligare Commodities Ltd, Acit, D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, Circle-15(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacf8356R (Appellant) (Respondent) Religare Commodities Ltd, Dcit, D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, Circle-15(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacf8356R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 28Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…he vesting period. In such a scenario, the actual amount of remuneration to the employees would be only the amount of actual discounted premium at the time of exercise of option. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2008] 297 ITR 167/166 Taxman 204 relevant to the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 has held that the allotment of shares to employees under ESOP subject to a lock in period of five years and other conditions could not be treated as a perquisite as there was no benefit and the value of benefit, if any, was unascertainable at the time when options were exercised…

Sainath Iyer, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax 26(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby

ITA 7483/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2000-01
For Appellant: Shri S.C.Tiwari and Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri G. Nantha Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…Lock in upto 30.09.01 5. The contention of the assessee is that the shares which were in the lock in period is not liable to be considered as taxable upon its value in view of the law settled in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (2008) 297 ITR 167 (SC). The question which has been raised in this appeal has duly been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd.(Supra).It 4 A.Y. 2000-01 is not in dispute that the assessee has offered the tax upon the transferable 1/3rd share i.e.2340 shares out of 7000 shar…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Sri. Pramod H. Lele, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeals are dismissed

ITA 5581/MUM/2004[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5581/Mum/2004 & 3691/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2004-05) Asst. Cit, Room No. 447, Pramod H. Lele, बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 5/7, Chandrashekhar Co-Op Soc., Mumbi-400 020 Swami Nityanand Road, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapl 6012 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ganesh Bare ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Waglay सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.07.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Two Appeals By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xi, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Arising Out Of Separate Orders, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2002-03 & 2004-05. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Taxability Of The Gain On The Transfer Of Sweat Equity Shares During The Relevant Previous Years Allotted To The Assessee. While The Revenue Seeks To Bring The Entire Gain To Tax As Short-Term Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh BareFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Waglay
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 56

…which in fact represents settled law. This principle also emanates from the decision in the case of CIT vs. Bharat V. Patel (Tax Appeal No. 14 of 2004 and others dated 23.12.2014), as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Infosys Technology Ltd. [2008] 297 ITR 167 (SC). The decision in Bharat V. Patel (supra), rendered upon consideration of Infosys Technology Ltd. (supra), in-as-much as it confirms the income received on the redemption of the stock appreciation rights as capital gains, is consistent with and, in fact, supports the case of the Revenue. The issue at large can thus be said to be principally f…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. People Interactive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6990/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. R. S.SamariaFor Respondent: Shri B S Bisht
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 37

…m/2013 Assessment Years : 2007-08,2008-09,2009-10 amount of remuneration to the employees would be only the amount of actual discounted premium at the time of exercise of option. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CITv. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2008] 297 ITR 167/166 Taxman 204 relevant to the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 has held that the allotment of shares to employees under ESOP subject to a lock in period of five years and other conditions could not be treated as a perquisite as there was no benefit and the value of benefit, if any, was unascertainable at the time when options were exercised…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6986/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. R. S.SamariaFor Respondent: Shri B S Bisht
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 37

…m/2013 Assessment Years : 2007-08,2008-09,2009-10 amount of remuneration to the employees would be only the amount of actual discounted premium at the time of exercise of option. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CITv. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2008] 297 ITR 167/166 Taxman 204 relevant to the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 has held that the allotment of shares to employees under ESOP subject to a lock in period of five years and other conditions could not be treated as a perquisite as there was no benefit and the value of benefit, if any, was unascertainable at the time when options were exercised…

People Interactive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 4979/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. R. S.SamariaFor Respondent: Shri B S Bisht
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 37

…m/2013 Assessment Years : 2007-08,2008-09,2009-10 amount of remuneration to the employees would be only the amount of actual discounted premium at the time of exercise of option. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CITv. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2008] 297 ITR 167/166 Taxman 204 relevant to the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 has held that the allotment of shares to employees under ESOP subject to a lock in period of five years and other conditions could not be treated as a perquisite as there was no benefit and the value of benefit, if any, was unascertainable at the time when options were exercised…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Divya Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue Dismissed and Cross

ITA 4315/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Mohsin Alam, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153C

…ITA NO. 4315/Del/2011 & CO No. 355/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4315/Del/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 ACIT, Central Circle-03, VS. Smt. Divya Jain, Room No. 355, 3rd floor, C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Jhnadewalan Extension, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) New Delhi – 110 055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. No. 355/Del/2011 (In ITA No. 4315/Del/2011) A.Y. : 2007-08 Smt. Divya Jain, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-03, 3rd C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Room No. 355, floor, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) Jhnadewalan Extension, New…