Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JASWINDER SINGH AHUJA
February, 26th 2013
       THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 08.02.2013

+       ITA 81/2013

        COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                              ..... Appellant

                             versus

        JASWINDER SINGH AHUJA                                   ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant            : Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr
                               Manish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent           : None.


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

        This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as ,,the said Act) has been preferred by the

revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.3417/Del/2009 pertaining to

the assessment year 2002-03. The present proceedings arose out of the

penalty order passed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of

the said Act on 24.06.2010.









ITA 81/2013                                                            Page 1 of 4
2.       The facts are that the respondent/ assessee was employed with M/s

Cadence Design Systems India Pvt. Ltd. and as a part of his employment

he received stock options by virtue of an agreement dated 17.09.1992

with Cadence Designs System, USA. During the year in question the

assessee sold the stock options and received `1,05,19,631/-. The same

was declared by the respondent/ assessee in his return as long term capital

gains. However, the assessing officer took a different view and assessed

the same as short term capital gains and also directed initiation of penalty

proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act.


3.       In the quantum proceedings the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) deleted the addition made by the assessing officer on account

of the change in treatment from long term capital gains to short term

gains.        The revenue went up in appeal before the Tribunal and the

Tribunal allowed the appeals and upheld the view taken by the assessing

officer. In other words the Tribunal settled the issue with regard to the

manner in which the gains from the sale of stock options were to be

considered. The Tribunal reversed the view taken by the Commissioner

of Income Tax (Appeals) and held that the said gains were short term

capital gains as held by the assessing officer.




ITA 81/2013                                                      Page 2 of 4
4.      In the penalty proceedings the assessing officer imposed a penalty

of `15,69,445/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the

said penalty on the ground that the issue was debatable at the time when

the assessee filed his return and, therefore, he could not have been held to

have furnished inaccurate particulars or to have concealed his income.

This view has been upheld by the Tribunal by virtue of the order dated

25.06.2012. The Tribunal held as under: -


        "5. In the assessees case, evidently, there is no furnishing
        of any inaccurate particulars. It is not the case of the
        Revenue that the assessee has either concealed any fact or
        has submitted any wrong or incorrect fact. It is only the
        question of opinion whether the income from sale of stock
        option is assessable as short term capital gain or as long term
        capital gain. In view of the above, respectfully following the
        above decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of
        Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd., we uphold the order of
        learned CIT(A)."


3.      We are of the view that the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) as also the Tribunal have approached the issue correctly. The

question whether the sale of the stock options would result in long term

capital gains or short term gains was not very clear at the time when the

respondent/ assessee filed his return for the assessment year 2002-03. In

fact the view taken by the assessing officer in the quantum proceedings








ITA 81/2013                                                        Page 3 of 4
had been reversed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the

appeal filed by the assessee. The view taken by the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) was ultimately reversed by the Tribunal and the

view of the assessing officer was upheld in the quantum proceedings.

This, in itself, is indicative of the fact that the issue was not very clear-

cut. That being the position, we cannot bring the case of the respondent/

assessee within the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the said Act. The

reliance placed by the Tribunal on CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.

Ltd.: 322 ITR 158 (SC) is also apposite.


4.      For the foregoing reasons we do not find any substantial question

of law in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.


                                           BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



                                                         R.V.EASWAR, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2013
hs




ITA 81/2013                                                       Page 4 of 4
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting