https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95808 Business loss was disallowed on the premise that it was not genuine; applying s.28, the forum held that real revenue losses incidental to trade are deductible unless expressly barred, and found the disallowance conjectural and contrary to settled law, directing allowance of the loss in full. ESOP cross-charge was treated as notional; relying on prior year orders and the principle that "expenditure" under s.37 includes such employee compensation cost, the deduction for ESOP expense was allowed. Reimbursement of ESOP cost to the parent was held not to be consideration for services and made cost-to-cost; hence no TDS obligation arose under s.195 and the revenue's challenge failed. Manpower expenses were supported by contracts, invoices, statut..... en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:39:09 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:39:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95808 Business loss was disallowed on the premise that it was not genuine; applying s.28, the forum held that real revenue losses incidental to trade are deductible unless expressly barred, and found the disallowance conjectural and contrary to settled law, directing allowance of the loss in full. ESOP cross-charge was treated as notional; relying on prior year orders and the principle that "expenditure" under s.37 includes such employee compensation cost, the deduction for ESOP expense was allowed. Reimbursement of ESOP cost to the parent was held not to be consideration for services and made cost-to-cost; hence no TDS obligation arose under s.195 and the revenue's challenge failed. Manpower expenses were supported by contracts, invoices, statut..... Highlights Income Tax Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:39:09 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95808