https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299970 Deletion of disallowance for expenditure claimed as Employees Stock Option Plan cost was not interfered with because the issue had already been covered by earlier binding orders of the same HC for the relevant assessment years. The Court noted that those orders had considered the applicable precedents on ESOP-related expenditure, leaving no scope for further interference in appeal under section 260A. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose, and the deletion of the disallowance was left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2022 08:47:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299970 Deletion of disallowance for expenditure claimed as Employees Stock Option Plan cost was not interfered with because the issue had already been covered by earlier binding orders of the same HC for the relevant assessment years. The Court noted that those orders had considered the applicable precedents on ESOP-related expenditure, leaving no scope for further interference in appeal under section 260A. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose, and the deletion of the disallowance was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299970