2018 (4) TMI 1680

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e urges that in terms of Circular No.9 of 2007, the expenditure ought not to be allowed given that actual expenditure towards acquisition of shares, and not mere allotment of shares by the employer can be considered as a permissible deduction, this Court is of the opinion that such an argument is untenable; that was the rationale of disallowance in this case. What the Revenue urges essentially is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .Pranjal Srivastava and Ms.Devina Sharma, Advocates ORDER The question of law urged with respect to expenditure claimed towards case of Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) has been subject matter of previous orders of this Court in respect of the present assessee. For A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA 107/2017 ( Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lemon Tree Hotel Ltd. ), the Court held that since the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allotment or issue of ESOP is merely notional. This Court is of the opinion that such an argument ignores the realities of functioning of commercial entities who would then be asked to purchase shares from market place or third party at prevailing rates instead of allotting them. For above reasons, no question of law arises. The second issue is with respect to the disallowance under Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X