Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted where income was disclosed in section 153A returns and remaining additions were only estimated or computationa...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
