9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of law as relied on by the Tribunal not having been disputed, considering a question of fact in the present appeal does not arise and hence the contention sought to be put forth by the Revenue in the present appeal is liable to be rejected. It is clear and forthcoming that the Revenue had sought to contend in the present appeal that the expenditure towards ESOP is not an allowable expenditure as per Section 37 (1) of the IT Act. However, this Court in the case of Biocon Ltd.[ 2020 (11) TMI 779 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] having categorically held that the same is an allowable expenditure, there is no merit in the contention sought to be put forth by the Revenue. No substantial question of law would arise. Decided in favour of assessee. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear from the scheme of ESOP that the employees will not get any right in the share till completion of the period prescribed and expenditure claim is contingent, this is not an allowable expenditure under Section 37 (1) of the Act. 3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that the assessee is primarily engaged in sub-licensing, distribution and after sale support for products of SAP-SE. The assessee filed revised returns for AY 2017-18 and the said return was selected for scrutiny. A reference was made under Section 92CA of the IT Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] . Vide order dated 22.1.2021, the TPO recommended an amount of Rs. 178,54,75,146/- relating to TP adjustment. Subsequently, the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count on issue of ESOP was allowable expense under Section 37 (1) of the IT Act. 7. Although learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute the proposition of law as held by the Tribunal and as laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Biocon Ltd.,8, it is sought to be contended that the relevant material has not been placed by the assessee to claim the said deduction. The DRP while considering the said aspect has noticed various legal provisions and disallowed the same. However, the position of law as relied on by the Tribunal not having been disputed, considering a question of fact in the present appeal does not arise and hence the contention sought to be put forth by the Revenue in the present appeal is liable to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
