<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (11) TMI 779 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401024</link>
    <description>Whether ESOP discount is deductible under s.37(1) was the dominant issue. The HC held that &quot;expenditure&quot; includes loss; issuing shares at a discount, with the employer absorbing the difference between market value at grant and offer price, constitutes employee remuneration incurred to secure continued service and cannot be treated as a short receipt of capital. Applying mercantile accounting and SEBI ESOP Guidelines, the discount is allowable over the vesting period as a definite liability, and consistency principles barred the Revenue from taking a contrary stand where deduction was allowed in later years. Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed and deduction upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2026 11:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 779 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401024</link>
      <description>Whether ESOP discount is deductible under s.37(1) was the dominant issue. The HC held that &quot;expenditure&quot; includes loss; issuing shares at a discount, with the employer absorbing the difference between market value at grant and offer price, constitutes employee remuneration incurred to secure continued service and cannot be treated as a short receipt of capital. Applying mercantile accounting and SEBI ESOP Guidelines, the discount is allowable over the vesting period as a definite liability, and consistency principles barred the Revenue from taking a contrary stand where deduction was allowed in later years. Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed and deduction upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>