https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788728 ESOP cross-charge incurred by an Indian entity for shares granted to employees by a foreign parent was treated as employee compensation cost incurred to secure and retain services during the vesting period, and was held allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1). The binding jurisdictional precedent was applied to hold that the discount or cross-charge is expenditure for business purposes and that the liability is ascertained rather than contingent. The fact that the parent issued the shares did not change the character of the payment in the Indian entity's hands, and the pendency of a challenge before the Supreme Court did not displace the jurisdictional High Court ruling, so the disallowance was deleted. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788728 ESOP cross-charge incurred by an Indian entity for shares granted to employees by a foreign parent was treated as employee compensation cost incurred to secure and retain services during the vesting period, and was held allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1). The binding jurisdictional precedent was applied to hold that the discount or cross-charge is expenditure for business purposes and that the liability is ascertained rather than contingent. The fact that the parent issued the shares did not change the character of the payment in the Indian entity's hands, and the pendency of a challenge before the Supreme Court did not displace the jurisdictional High Court ruling, so the disallowance was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788728