<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1830 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469437</link>
    <description>Employee Stock Option Plan expenditure was treated as revenue expenditure deductible under section 37(1) because the Tribunal followed its own earlier order in the assessee&#039;s case and applied the settled view that such ESOP cost is not capital in nature. On identical facts for prior years, the coordinate bench had already allowed the deduction. The Revenue&#039;s appeal therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 19:02:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1830 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469437</link>
      <description>Employee Stock Option Plan expenditure was treated as revenue expenditure deductible under section 37(1) because the Tribunal followed its own earlier order in the assessee&#039;s case and applied the settled view that such ESOP cost is not capital in nature. On identical facts for prior years, the coordinate bench had already allowed the deduction. The Revenue&#039;s appeal therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>