“Section 17(2)(vi)”

Section References (mined)Section 17Section 17(2)(vi)28 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 17(2)(vi) is State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India (257 ITR 202), cited in 121 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 17(2)(vi)

State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India

257 ITR 202 · 2002 · High Court

121

citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

297 ITR 167 · 2008 · Supreme Court

115

citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd.

237 ITR 392 · 1999 · High Court

citing judgments

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

332 ITR 253 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

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)

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

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

ITA 4737/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 43B

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

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

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

ITA 4100/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 43B

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

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

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

ITA 184/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 43B

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Harish Bhandari, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3049/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shashi Bhushan Shukla, CIT DR

Section 132Section 17(2)(vi)Section 28

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2285/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I-2‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2273/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I-2‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT (TDS -2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sula Vineyards Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 12/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit (Tds)-2(2), Sula Vineyards Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 322, Mtnl Office, 901, Hubtown Solaries, N.S. Cumballa Hill, Vs. Phadke Marg, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400029. Pan No. Aabcn 7126 Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Singh, Ar Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 201(1)

share computed by the Merchant Banker without appreciating that section the Merchant Banker without appreciating that section the Merchant Banker without appreciating that section 17(2)(vi) r.w. Rule 3(8) provides for adopting FMV of the shares 17(2)(vi) r.w. Rule 3(8) provides for adopting FMV 17 ... Rajeev Sawant paid ₹ 62 lakh to the company for the 40,00 company for the 40,000 shares. 2.1 As per the section 17(2)(vi) of the As per the section 17(2)(vi) of the Act the value of any the value of any specified security allotted

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

provision in the Act to treat the ESOPs as perquisites in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that the amendment in section 17(2)(vi) of the Act was w.e.f. 01.04.2010. He submitted that prior to such amendment ESOPs were treated as capital receipts in the hands of recipient