No substantial question of law arose on ESOP expenditure where earlier binding orders already covered the issue.

Deletion of disallowance for expenditure claimed as Employees Stock Option Plan cost was not interfered with because the issue had already been covered by earlier binding orders of the same HC for the relevant assessment years. The Court noted that those orders had considered the applicable precedents on ESOP-related expenditure, leaving no scope for further interference in appeal under section 260A. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose, and the deletion of the disallowance was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose from the deletion of disallowance of expenditure claimed as Employees Stock Option Plan cost.

Analysis: The question was examined in the context of earlier decisions of the same Court for the relevant assessment years and the authorities cited on the treatment of ESOP-related expenditure. As the earlier orders had considered the relevant precedents and covered the assessment years in dispute, the matter did not warrant further interference in appeal under section 260A.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The deletion of the disallowance was left undisturbed and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the issue is already covered by earlier binding orders considering the relevant precedents, no substantial question of law arises for interference in appeal.

---