“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

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

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

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

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)

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

directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former\nemployer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity 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\ndismissed

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

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

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

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“B” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE HON'BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG

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

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\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“B” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE HON'BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG

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

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

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