TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to as Ld. CIT(A)' for the captioned assessment year on the following grounds: 1. Ground No. 1 - General The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO') and sustain the following additions or disallowance made in the impugned assessment order: Disallowance of Employee Stock Option Plan ("ESOP") expense aggregating to Rs. 54,53,100/-; Addition of Rs. 7,48,95,744/- on account of re-computation of long-term capital gain and the consequent disallowance of long-term capital loss of Rs. 4,08,40,800/- as computed by the appellant company on sale of Kodaikanal Land. 2. Ground No. 2 - Disallowance of Employee Stock Option Plan expense aggregating to Rs. 54,53,100/- 2.1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing the employee stock option plan expense of Rs. 54,53,100/- debited to profit and loss account. 2.2. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that the ESOP discount has been recognized over the vesting period of the ESOP in accordance with the guidelines and accounting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral The appellant company craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal. 2. Ground of appeal No. 1 raised by the assessee general in nature needs no adjudication, therefore stands dismissed. 3. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee relates to confirming the action of AO in making disallowance of ESOP (Employees Stock Option Plan) expenses. 4. At the very outset, Ld. AR submitted that the said issue is covered in favour of assessee in assessee's own case for A.Y 2011-12 to 2013-14 in ITA No. 4611 to 4613/Mum/2018. 5. Apart from the above assessee also placed reliance on other decisions of Coordinate Bench of Tribunal and that of affirmed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bicon Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2020] 430 ITR 151 (Kar). 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the revenue authority. 7. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we found that the identical issue already been decided by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there are no material change in the facts and circumstances of the present case with that of the above mentioned cases therefore while adhearing to the principles of judicial consistency we also give the same direction, and direct the AO to delete the disallowance, accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No.3, this ground raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of long term capital loss and computing of long term capital gain on the sale of Kodaikanal land. 10. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that during the year under consideration the assessee claimed capital loss of Rs. 4,08,40,800/- and the said loss was incurred on sale of property at Kodaikanal. The land was purchased for Rs. 4,62,000/- on 28.03.1987 and its fair market value as per valuation was determined at 4,38,90,000/- as on 01.04.1981. The indexed cost of acquisition has been worked out at Rs. 11,93,80,800/- during the F.Y 2017-18. However, the assessee was asked to furnish collector rate of this property as on 01.04.2001, al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recognition of income when sales takes place? 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the plea of the assessee that 40% of receipts are deferred for future expenses towards maintenance when, the Balance Sheet does not show any provision made towards future liability for such maintenance? 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deferring income on the plea of unquantified future liabilities ignoring the fact that all claims made by the assessee towards maintenance of property in subsequent years were allowed as deduction? 7. "The appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/ or delete any of the grounds of appeal as above." 15. The only ground raised by the revenue is challenging the order of Ld.CIT(A) in deletion of additions made on account of deffered income. 16. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that the said issue has already been decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for A.Y 2011-12 to 2013-14 in ITA No. 4611 to 4613/Mum/2018. 17. Apart from above, assessee also placed reliance on other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee offered income of Rs. 4,98,23,067/- being 45% of the total amount received of Rs. 10,79,94,361/-. The balance 55% translating to income of Rs. 6,08,94,861/- was deferred to future years. In course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing the aforesaid revenue recognition method adopted by the assessee called upon the assessee to explain why the entire amount received during the year should not be treated as income. Though, the assessee furnished its reply objecting to the proposed addition, however, the A.O. rejecting the submission of the assessee proceeded to treat the entire amount of Rs. 10,79,94,361/- as income of the assessee for the year under consideration While doing so, the A.O. also did not follow the decision of the Tribunal on identical issue in assessee's own case in A.Ys. 2002-03, 2006-07 and 2008-09 on the plea that the department has contested the decision of the Tribunal by filing appeals before the Hon'ble High Court. The assessee having offered the amount of Rs. 4,98,23,061/- as income, the balance amount of Rs. 6,08,94,861/- was added back to the income of the assessee in A.Y. 2011-12. 3 Similar additions were a....