Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
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 4811 
Join Channel 
