TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat same has not been claimed in the return of income filed by it. The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, expenditure incurred by the Appellant on ESOP, being the perquisite value in the hands of its employees (i.e. difference between the market price of the shares on the date of exercise of option reduced by the exercise price), ought to be allowed as a deduction while assessing its income for the year under consideration and the CIT(A)/ NFAC ought to have held as such. The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to allow the expenditure incurred by it on ESOP and to re-compute the total income and tax thereon accordingly. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee during the assessment proceeding, vide its response dated 15.03.2021 inter alia claimed deduction on account of Employee Stock Option Scheme ['ESOP'].The AO rejected the claim on the ground that the AO can allow only those deductions to the assessee which have been claimed while filing of return except depreciation and assessee cannot make further claim of deduction before him. Further, there is no provision under the Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ently argued against the action of lower authorities. It was contented that the appellate authorities could entertain such a claim even though not made even by way of revised return of income but subsequently as well. Reliance has been placed on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders(2012) 23 Taxmann.com 23(Bom) and decision of coordinate bench in ITA No.2130/Mum/2024 in the case of Chandraprakash Gupta and also on ITA No.917/Mum/2017 in National Stock Exchange Investor Protection Fund. 6. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case, gone through the relevant orders and the submissions made by the assess in this regard. We have also perused the judicial decisions relied upon by the two sides. We may also add that the decision rendered in the case of Goetz India Pvt.Ltd. (supra) based on which the revenue authorities drew their conclusions to ignore the revised computation of total income has been subject matter of several judicial pronouncements. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1990) 53 taxman 85(SC), it was held that the first appellate authority has wide powers u/s.251(1)(a) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the powers of CIT(A) or the Tribunal are concerned, the Courts have recognized their jurisdiction to entertain a new ground or a legal contention which would ordinarily be a pure question of law without raising any dispute about the facts. Thus, the courts have recognized the powers of the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal to entertain not only additional ground but also additional claim of deductions/allowance made for the first time though not made before the lower authorities. This is primarily on the premise that if a claim though available in law is not made either inadvertently or on account of erroneous belief of complex legal position, such claim cannot be denied merely because it is raised for the first time before the appellate authority without resorting to revising the return before the AO. 6.2 Considering the above proposition and also the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not entertaining the claim without proper examination of the issue in hand. Hence, the matter is set aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to state he would accord adequate opportunity of being heard to the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elve per cent or, as the case may be, thirty-six per cent of the tax due on the returned income, then, it shall not be liable to pay any interest on the amount of the shortfall on those dates; (b) the assessee, other than a company, who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or,-- (i) the advance tax paid by the assessee on his current income on or before the 15th day of September is less than thirty per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of December is less than sixty per cent of the tax due on the returned income, then, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of [one] per cent per month for a period of three months on the amount of the shortfall from thirty per cent or, as the case may be, sixty per cent of the tax due on the returned income; (ii) the advance tax paid by the assessee on his current income on or before the 15th day of March is less than the tax due on the returned income, then, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of [one] per cent on the amount of the shortfall from the tax due on....