<?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>2026 (1) TMI 297 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784541</link>
    <description>Business loss was disallowed on the ground of being unreal; the Tribunal held that s.28 permits deduction of real, revenue losses incidental to business unless expressly prohibited, and applying SC principles on allowability of business losses, found the disallowance conjectural and contrary to law, directing deletion and allowing the loss in full. ESOP cross-charge was treated as notional and disallowed under s.37; the Tribunal followed its earlier decision and the Biocon principle (as affirmed by HC) that &quot;expenditure&quot; includes such ESOP-related loss incurred wholly and exclusively for business, and allowed the deduction. Reimbursement of ESOP costs to the parent was held not to be consideration for services and made on cost-to-cost basis; no TDS u/s 195 was required, so Revenue&#039;s ground failed. Manpower expenses were disallowed due to vendor non-traceability; contemporaneous agreements, invoices, statutory records, banking payments and TDS established genuineness, so the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:03:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 297 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784541</link>
      <description>Business loss was disallowed on the ground of being unreal; the Tribunal held that s.28 permits deduction of real, revenue losses incidental to business unless expressly prohibited, and applying SC principles on allowability of business losses, found the disallowance conjectural and contrary to law, directing deletion and allowing the loss in full. ESOP cross-charge was treated as notional and disallowed under s.37; the Tribunal followed its earlier decision and the Biocon principle (as affirmed by HC) that &quot;expenditure&quot; includes such ESOP-related loss incurred wholly and exclusively for business, and allowed the deduction. Reimbursement of ESOP costs to the parent was held not to be consideration for services and made on cost-to-cost basis; no TDS u/s 195 was required, so Revenue&#039;s ground failed. Manpower expenses were disallowed due to vendor non-traceability; contemporaneous agreements, invoices, statutory records, banking payments and TDS established genuineness, so the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>