Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1668 - AT - Income TaxEmployee Stock Option Scheme Compensation - disallowance u/s 37(1) - AO disallowed the above expenditure holding that above expenditure is not a revenue expenditure, it is not an actual expenditure incurred by the assessee company, Sebi guidelines are not the prerogative for determining the eligibility or otherwise often item for income tax purposes, the shares were the capital of the assessee company and loss to the capital can be considered as a capital loss and not revenue expenditure - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim of the assessee as following the decision in assessee’s own case by his predecessor [2015 (8) TMI 319 - ITAT DELHI], [2016 (6) TMI 1481 - ITAT DELHI] and [2019 (1) TMI 1401 - ITAT DELHI] and following the decision of the honourable mother High Court in case of PVP ventures Ltd [2012 (7) TMI 696 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] which held that such a liability is an ascertained liabilities and the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Biocon Ltd. [2013 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT BANGALORE] Decided against revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A - as per CIT(A) as assessee has computed the disallowance in revised return only taking those investments which had earned exempt income during the year. He found same to be in order and restricted the disallowance to that extent - HELD THAT:- On careful consideration of the order of the learned CIT(A), it is noted that he has held that only those investments on which dividend income is received during the year should be considered for the purpose of working out average investment for computation of disallowance under rule 8D in accordance with section 14 A of the act. The above view has been upheld in case of ACB India Ltd [2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A accordingly, ground number two of the appeal is dismissed.
|