Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
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 4915 
