Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
