only such proportion of the ESOP perquisite as is relatable to the service rendered by the Employee in India is taxable in India.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI 'I' BENCH, MUMBAI

[Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President),
and Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member)]

ITA Nos. 1200 and 1201/Mum/2018
Assessment years: 2013-14 and 2014-15

Unnikrishnan V S ……………….………Appellant
C/o G P Kapadia & Co
61 A, Mittal Tower, Nariman Point
Mumbai 400 021 [PAN: AAPPU3300G]

Vs.

Income Tax Officer
International Taxation 4(3)(1), Mumbai ……………………Respondent

Appearances by
Kirit Mehta for the appellant
S S Iyengar for the respondent

Date of concluding the hearing : January 12, 2021
Date of pronouncement : January 13, 2021

ORDER

Per Pramod Kumar, VP:

1. These two appeals pertain to the same assessee, involve a common issue regarding taxation of ESOP benefit and were heard together. All the relevant material facts are admittedly the same, except for a variation in the quantum of ESOP benefits brought to tax- while the the amount of ESOP benefit in question, in dispute, for the assessment year 2013-14 is Rs 72,77,320, the quantum of ESOP benefit for the assessment year 2014-15 is Rs 83,59, 125. We will take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 first, and whatever we decide in the said appeal, as learned representatives agree, will apply mutatis mutandis 2014-15 as well. The said appeal calls into question the correctness of the order dated 19th January 2018, passed by the learned C.I.T. (A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the assessment year 2013-14.

2. Grievances raised by the appellant, which, it may also be added, are common in both the years before us, are as follows:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer to tax Employee Stock Option as perquisite u/s 17.

2. Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the Appellant is not entitled for relief from taxability of perquisite in the form of Employee Stock Options, under the provisions of Section 90 of the Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UAE (‘DTAA’);

To know more in details find the attachment file