| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 857 2009 SLD 857 (2009) 319 ITR 289 |
Karnataka High Court
IT APPEAL No. 44 OF 2003, JANUARY 29, 2009
DEEPAK VERMA AND K. RAMANNA, JJ.
M.V. Seshachala for the Appellant. Ms. Saina Mary Thomas for the
Respondent.
IT APPEAL No. 44 OF 2003, JANUARY 29, 2009
DEEPAK VERMA AND K. RAMANNA, JJ.
M.V. Seshachala for the Appellant. Ms. Saina Mary Thomas for the
Respondent.
Commissioner of Income Tax
v.
Wipro Ltd.
Law:
Section:
Section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Salary - Assessment year 1997-98 Assessee-company was not liable to deduct TDS under section 192 in respect of issue of its shares under stock option plan to its employees at a concessional rate as it could not be treated as a perquisite (salary) [In favour of assessee] In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2008] 297 ITR 167, assessee-company was not liable to deduct TDS under section 192 in respect of the issue of its shares under stock option plan to its employees at a concessional rate as it could not be treated as a perquisite (salary). M.V. Seshachala for the Appellant. Ms. Saina Mary Thomas for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J. - Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants. Kum. Saina Mary Thomas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated July 31, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal I.T.A. No. 294/Bang/01 for the assessment year 1997-98. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration of this court : "Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee-company was not liable to deduct TDS under section 192 of the Act over the issue of its shares under stock option plan to its employees at a concessional rate as it cannot be treated as a perquisite (salary) and, therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as a defaulter under section 201(1) of the Act and consequently no interest under section 201(1A) of the Act can be levied. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the issue of 4,100 shares of the assessee-company by WERT (a trust) in favour of the employees of the assessee-company divested the assessee-company of its obligation to deduct the TDS. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that section 17(2)(iiia ) of the Act was not clarificatory in nature and was not applicable to the current assessment year." 4. However, learned counsel for the parties have…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492