6 and 14 of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SWETA DHYANI Date 2018.04.24 171443 IST 2004 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Reason the appeals filed by the Revenue while upholding the decision of the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal for brevity the Tribunal dated 27.06.2003.
Brief facts On 10.09.1998, the Respondent, who is the Chairman and Managing Director of Procter and Gamble PG , India, filed his income tax return for the Assessment Year 199899 and declaring the total income at Rs 40,13,820/. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.02.2001, companycluded the assessment proceeding under Section 143 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the IT Act and determined the total income of the Respondent at Rs 7,23,11,013/ against the declared income.
Being dissatisfied, the Respondent carried the matter before the Tribunal.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 15.09.2003, the Respondent filed an appeal before the CIT Appeals being No.
Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals being No.
The decision of the Tribunal dated 24.09.2010 was number challenged further.
Hence, the present appeals have been filed by the Revenue before this Court.
These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Tax Appeal Nos.
At the same time, companysequent to the decision of the Tribunal dated 27.06.2003, the Assessing Officer started the proceeding side by side to give effect to the order dated 27.06.2003.
Vide order dated 15.09.2003, the Assessing Officer held that the difference being sum of Rs 6,80,40,649/ paid to the Respondent by PG, USA shall be treated as capital gains on transfer redemption of shares, and hence, the Respondent is liable to pay tax on capital gains.
CAB V 37/0405 which was upheld by learned CIT Appeals in favour of Assessing Officer while dismissing the appeal of the Respondent.
Being dissatisfied, the Respondent further preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
The Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2004, allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
At this juncture, the Respondent as well as the Revenue both preferred cross appeals before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.
CAB I643/20002001.
SB and companytended that the Respondent, having received an amount on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights SARs as an employee of the companypany and there was an employeremployee relationship subsisting at the relevant point of time, therefore, the amount received on redemption of Share Appreciation Rights must be treated as taxable income under the head income from Salaries.
K.Agrawal, J Leave granted.
The Tribunal, vide order dated 24.09.2010, dismissed the appeal.
After companysidering the case, learned CIT Appeals , vide order dated 28.03.2002, dismissed the appeal of the Respondent after companyprehensively discussing the taxability of the alleged amount and upholding the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer.
2241/Ahd/2002 partly allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent.
