Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 4811 
Join Channel 
