TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Appellant Company had made a claim with the Id.CIT(A) of the aggregate perquisite value taxed in the hands of the employees on exercise of options during the AY 2021-22 amounting to Rs. 555,20,52,345. In this regard the Appellant prays to grant the claim of Rs. 216,78,60,432 (Rs. 555,20,52,345 (perquisite value) Rs. 338,41,91,912 (fair value claimed as per Black-Scholes Model) in the Profit and Loss A/c 1.3. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no bar on the powers of the CIT(A) under the Act and that the claim made for the first time in appeal before him ought to have been allowed based on binding juridical precedents. 1.4. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that since all relevant facts relating to the ground on allowability of ESOP expense were available on records, the same ought to have been allowed following the direct judicial precedents on the subject matter as well as his own order in the Appellant's case for AY 2013-14, AY 2015- 16, AY 2016-17, AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19, AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The said return was processed unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een filed and such expenses are not claimed before the Ld. AO. The Appellant has further mentioned some decisions and claimed that the Hon'ble ITAT and the Hon'ble High Court have allowed the same ever after discussion of the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT. I have carefully perused the submissions and the decisions mentioned. 1 find that in not a single decision, it is mentioned that the first appellant authority has allowed such deductions and the Hon'ble ITAT/Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the same. The Appellant has mentioned that such deductions are allowed by the ITAT mentioning that the respective appellant authority has power to allow the same where the Ld AO has not allowed the same as no revised ITR is filed. Here in this case, the Appellant has not claimed the Deduction before the Ld.AO. In all the decisions cited, the issue is totally different. There the claim of deduction was made before the Ld.AO without claiming the same in the ITR or with a REVISED ITR. But in this case, the deduction is not at all claimed before the Ld AO and claimed before the First Appellate Authority for the First Time. Hence, the decisions cited are not applicable in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mployees were taxed on the perquisite value arising therefrom. Ld. CIT(A) held that ESOS deduction is allowable only when the discount offered is taxable as perquisite in the hands of employees and is subjected to TDS as applicable. He placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [2015] 155 ITD 765 (Mum) for allowing the claim of assessee. He also took note of the fact about relief granted by ld. CIT(A) in assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2016-17 to 2020- 21. 28.2. In so far as this claim is concerned, the following would be relevant: i. For Assessment Year 2013-14, this issue is raised by way of filing an additional ground before the Tribunal on 13.09.2024. Additional ground was permitted to be filed by the assessee since claim made in this ground was raised originally in the appeal filed against "order giving effect" assessment made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the "order giving effect" assessment in ITA No.4217/Mum/2023 wherein the issue contested is in respect of expenditure incurred on ESOS. The scope of making assessment for giving effect to the appellate orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars as tabulated above, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed and those by assessee are allowed." 6. But the Ld. AR further mentioned that the said order of ITAT is duly considered in the assessment order passed under section 143(3); but the current issue is related to order passed under section 143(1) of the Act. He further relied on the order of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT, Central-1, Mumbai vs Prithvi Brokers and Shares Pvt Ltd (2012) 23 taxmann.com 23 (Bom). The relevant observation of the jurisdictional High Court is reproduced as below:- "22. It was then submitted by Mr. Gupta that the Supreme Court had taken a different view in Goetze (India) Ltd (supra). We are unable to agree. The decision was rendered by a Bench of two learned Judges and expressly refers to the judgment of the Bench of three learned Judges in National Thermal Power Comp. Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore, was not before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... powers of the Tribunal. In paragraph 19, the Division Bench held that there was no prohibition on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which, according to the Tribunal, arises in the matter and for the just decision of the case. 25. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to decide the other questions raised by Mr. Mistri. 26. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed." 7. The Ld. DR advanced arguments in support of the orders passed by the revenue authorities and placed full reliance thereon. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record, and considered the judgments cited by both parties. The core issue for adjudication pertains to the claim of deduction of Rs. 216,78,60,432/- towards ESOP expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee did not claim the said expenditure either in the original return of income filed under Section 139(1) or through a revised return. The said claim was raised for the first time before the Ld. CIT(A), who rejected the same by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra), on the ground that no revised....