Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
