9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... related to employees stock option cost - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view clear judicial decisions of higher Courts in the appellant s case only wherein the same issue has been decided in the assessee s favour, the disallowance made by the AO of expenses on account of ESOP is deleted. Disallowance in respect of late deposit of ESI/EPF contribution - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of assessee as relying on PRO INTERACTIVE SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [ 2018 (9) TMI 2009 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and AIMIL LIMITED [ 2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessee submitted that the issues are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 6. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition made by Ld.CIT(A) in respect of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules. 7. Ld. Sr.DR supported the assessment order and submitted the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:- 4. Findings and determination 4.1. Ground No. 1 and 2 relates to the disallowance on account of application of Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Income Tax Act wherein an addition of Rs.l,96,51,975/- has been made. 4.1.1 The assessee in his submission has clearly submitted that the assessee company has not -earned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted a copy of the order of the ITAT Delhi 'C' Bench in I.T.A. No. 3763/Del/2013 for assessment year 2009-10 dated 29.4.15 in the case of Indus Valley Investment & Finance (P) Ltd. vs DCIT and submitted that in the similar set of facts and circumstances, the Tribunal in the case of assessee's group company has directed that the disallowance u/s 14A should not exceed the exempt income and therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income. Learned counsel of the assessee has drawn our attention towards para 4 of the Tribunal order (supra). 4. Learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below, however, he fairly accepted that in the similar set of facts and circumstances, the amount of disallowance has been restricted to the exempt income. I.T.A.No. 6586/Del/2013 Assessment year: 2009-10 5. Firstly, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the order of the Tribunal (supra) which has been relied by the learned counsel of the assessee which reads as follows:- "4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the total exempt income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A has followed the judgements of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Holcim India Ltd. [2014] 19 CCH 081 (Del.) and CIT vs Cheminvest Ltd. 378 ITR 33. The Revenue has not brought to our notice any other binding precedents by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 11. Ground No.2 is against the deleting the addition made u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of the Rules while calculating MAT liabilities u/s 115JB of the Act. 12. Ld. Sr. DR supported the assessment order and submitted that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee in the case of CIT vs Bhushan Steel Ltd. in ITA No.593/2015 dated 29.09.2015 of the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2008-09. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has decided this issue by observing as under:- 4.2 "Ground No.3 relates to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ific issue was a subject matter with appeal for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. For the AY 2008-09, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case has held that the expenses on account of Employees Stock Option is allowable to the assessee. "The allowability of ESOP Expenses stands covered by the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Delhi ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 18.08.2015 in ITA No. 107/2015 has held as under:- CIT v. LEMON TREE HOTELS LTD. 2. The question sought to be projected by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,28,19,169/- made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') by way of disallowance of the expenses debited as cost of Employees Stock Option ('ESOP') in profit and loss account? 3. The Court has been shown a copy of the decision dated 19th June 2012 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in CIT-III Chennai v. PVP Venture Ltd. (TC(A) No. 1023 of 2005) where a similar question was answered in favour of the Assessee by holding that the cost of ESOP could be debited to the profit and loss account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2015. 22. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee in the cases of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018 and in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508. 23. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee in one of the cases as examined the case laws and held as under:- [a] Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 wherein it has been held:- 17. "We may only add that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Therefore, the Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. Insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
