Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
ESOP cross-charge was held to be revenue expenditure deductible under section 37(1), as employee stock option cost represents compensation for securing and retaining employee services during the vesting period. The Tribunal followed the Special Bench ruling in Biocon Ltd. and the jurisdictional High Court's affirmation, and held that the parent company's issuance of shares did not convert the Indian entity's cross-charged liability into capital expenditure. Coordinate bench decisions supporting similar claims were also relied on. The disallowance was deleted and the assessee's deduction claim was allowed.
ESOP cross-charge was held to be revenue expenditure deductible under section 37(1), as employee stock option cost represents compensation for securing and retaining employee services during the vesting period. The Tribunal followed the Special Bench ruling in Biocon Ltd. and the jurisdictional High Court's affirmation, and held that the parent company's issuance of shares did not convert the Indian entity's cross-charged liability into capital expenditure. Coordinate bench decisions supporting similar claims were also relied on. The disallowance was deleted and the assessee's deduction claim was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
