TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/-. Facts of the case as per the AO are that he has made the disallowance on the ground that the above expenses have not been debited in the books of account and hence not allowable. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that the issue is covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. Vs. DCIT 35 taxmann.com 335 and also by the decision taken by the predecessor Ld. CIT(A) in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14. After considering the submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the claim for deduction of Rs. 65,19,000/- on account of ESOP expenses is allowable. Therefore, he deleted the addition of Rs. 65,19,000/- as made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Biocon Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 35 taxmann.com 335 and also by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2013-14 in ITA No. 946/Kol/2017 dated 07.12.2018 (supra). We also note that the Ld. CIT(A) has also given relief to the assessee by relying on the decisions cited supra. Since this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the revenue and confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Revenue's ground of appeal is dismissed. 6. Ground no. 2 of revenue's appeal is against the deletion of addition made by AO to the tune of Rs. 1,97,06,000/- towards exchange loss. Briefly stated the facts as observed by the AO are that he noted from the computation of inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssor in appellant's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in Appeal No. 2210/CIT(A-3/C-8( I )/20 15-16 order dated 20.02.2017, the observation of my predecessor is as follows: "14. I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order, the remand report and the other material brought on record. The assessing officer had disallowed an amount of Rs. 283.30 lacs shown as negative figure under note 24 as finance cost arriving out of derivative transactions. The reason given for disallowance was that in absence of details for transactions, it could not be denied that the transactions were related to the business of the assessee. However the appellant has explained that the amount reduced this year was actually related to the reversa....