“ Section 17(2)(vi) ”

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

297 ITR 167 · 2008 · Supreme Court

115

CIT v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd.

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.

237 ITR 392 · 1999 · High Court

332 ITR 253 · 2011 · High Court

An assessing authority is entitled to determine the quantum of refund during a regular assessment made under section 143(3), and the assessed income can fall below the returned income.

CIT v. Qatar Airways

ITA 7386/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

A difference between the commercial price and published price of airline tickets is not a special commission or brokerage under section 194H, if the airline has discretion to reduce the published price.

Judgments citing Section 17(2)(vi)

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed and C

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Dcit Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Room No.320, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Te Vs 7Th Floor Inspire Bkc, G Block, Bkc Building, Pedder Road, Cumballa Main Road, Mumbai Hill, Mumbai [Pan:Aaacn5094N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 194HSection 254(1)

employee exercises the option because employee had to fulfill certain conditions in subsequent years. The appellant company contends that this perquisite value under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act was taxable in A.Y. 2023-24 only. 8a. Per contra, Ld. DR argues that the appellant company has quantified ... liability on company arises only when the benefit is exercised and actually availed, but not at the stage of mere grant. b) Section 17(2) (vi) of the Act and the Explanation says that on the date of transfer or allotment, the difference between FMV of option on the date

Icici Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai -4, Mumbai

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

ITA 3766/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80G

shares on the date of exercise and the grant price was taxed in the hands of the employees as a perquisite under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee duly deducted tax at source under section

DCIT(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2768/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Novartis Healthcare Private 320, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill, Limited Mtnl Te Bldg. Peddar Road Vs. 7Th Floor, Inspire Bkc, G Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg Block, Bkc Main Road Mumbai-400 026. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 121/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21)

For Respondent: S/Shri Anish Thacker (CA)

Section 133ASection 192Section 194Section 194HSection 201

employee exercises the option because employee had to fulfill certain conditions in subsequent years. The appellant company contends that this perquisite value under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act was taxable in A.Y. 2023-24 only. 8a. Per contra, Ld. DR argues that the appellant company has quantified ... liability on company arises only when the benefit is exercised and actually availed, but not at the stage of mere grant. b) Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act and the Explanation says that on the date of transfer or allotment, the difference between FMV of option on the date

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former employer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation to section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 111/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

ITA 110/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON'BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

ITA 5750/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

ITA 5749/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON'BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

ITA 4172/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

ITA 242/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Bandhan Bank Ltd, Kolkata

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

Bench: Us With The Following Grounds:

Section 17(2)(vi)Section 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Infiben Avenues Ltd (Formerly Infibeam Incorporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

purchase shares does not constitute an immediate financial obligation for the company. On further analysis, PCIT was of the view that under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, the difference between the market value of shares at the time of exercise and the amount paid by employees is considered

Sharad Kumar, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1381/CHNY/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1381/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Mr. Sharad Kumar, The Dcit, New No.6, Old No.7, Media Circle-1, Nawab Habibullah Avenue, Chennai. 3Rd Street, Chennai-6. [Pan: Aasps 2554 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. T.M.Suganthamala

Section 2(24)(iv)

2(b) of section 40A(5) of the Act included within the meaning of the expression "perquisite" the amount treated as perquisite under Section 17(2)(vi) which also was introduced by the same Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984. In other words, a loan granted to an employee

M/S. Bandhan Bank Ltd. (Erstwhile Ghosh Finance Ltd), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 465/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Paul, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(vi)Section 192Section 250Section 37

costs between the stock options sold to employees and the fair market value of shares is in the nature of prerequisite as per Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act. The said prerequisites have been added to the salary income of such employees, on which Income tax had been duly ... options are rewarded to the employees for their loyalty and commitment to GRUH during their service period. 1.2 Further, as per provisions of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the employee exercise the option, difference between exercise price and fair market price is considered

Nikesh Arora, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Gurgon

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1008/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2

cost of acquisition can be allowed while computing capital gain in view of the provisions contained under section 49(2AA) read with section 17(2)(vi) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the salary compensation received by the assessee amounting to USD 40,009,677 from SIMI ... claiming cost of acquisition of shares, the value should be fair market value, which has been taken into account as per section 17(2)(vi) of the Act under the head ‘income from salary’. Referring to section 15 8 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 read with section 17

Aster Dm Healthcare Ltd, Kochi vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 98/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasaster Dm Healthcare Ltd. Dy. Cit, Ix/475L, Kuttisahib Road Corporate Circle-1(1) (Aster Medicity Hospital) Central Revenue Building Vs. Cheranallore, Kochi 682027 I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaccd7912K] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

ACIT Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 5922/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

ITA 5920/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Addi. CIT Spl. Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

ITA 5509/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

ITA 5167/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Delhi Tourism Transportation and Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)