Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
ESOP expenditure was held allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) because the jurisdictional Karnataka High Court had already decided the issue in favour of the assessee and upheld deletion of the disallowance in the assessee's own case. Mere pendency of a similar issue before the Supreme Court in another matter did not dilute the binding effect of that High Court ruling. Applying the jurisdictional precedent, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's challenge and sustained the deletion of the ESOP disallowance.
ESOP expenditure was held allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) because the jurisdictional Karnataka High Court had already decided the issue in favour of the assessee and upheld deletion of the disallowance in the assessee's own case. Mere pendency of a similar issue before the Supreme Court in another matter did not dilute the binding effect of that High Court ruling. Applying the jurisdictional precedent, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's challenge and sustained the deletion of the ESOP disallowance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
