TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RT] The judgment of this Court shows that the substantive addition under Section 37, was held to be not unwarranted. The Court had approved the ITAT order which had in turn relied upon the ruling of the Tribunal in Biocon Limited v. DCIT [2013 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT BANGALORE]. Besides, the Madras High Court had taken a similar view in CIT Chennai v. PVP Ventures Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 696 - MADRAS HIG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to tax under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. These deductions were claimed as ESOP expenses for the relevant AY 2007-08. CIT(A) to whom the assessee appealed held that the question of ESOP expenditure was a debatable one and having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts (2010) 189 Taxman 322 , the penalty imposed was not justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the ruling of the Tribunal in Biocon Limited v. DCIT [2013] 144 ITD 21 (Bang) (SB). Besides, the Madras High Court had taken a similar view in CIT Chennai v. PVP Ventures Ltd. [TC(A) 1023/2005 decided on 19.06.2012]. Furthermore, we notice that the assessee s ESOP claim under Section 37 for the previous year 2006-07 too had been upheld by the Tribunal which was affirmed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
