TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 2008-09 identical issue arose before the coordinate bench [ 2017 (1) TMI 783 - ITAT DELHI] claim of the assessee with respect to both the above items were allowed. The above expenditure on account of employee stock option scheme is an ascertained liability for deduction - the expenses debited is cost of employee stock option plan in the profit and loss account is an allowable expenditure. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA no. 1780/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2019 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI AND SHRI O.P. KANT, JJ. Appellant by : S/shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Tejasvi Jain, CA Respondent by : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR ORDER O.P. KANT,, J. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of the aforesaid amount of loan written off as loss incidental to business under section 28 of the Act. 1.4 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in following decision of the co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. AC1T: 124 TTJ 771, and thereby not following the principle/ ratio laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT: 155 TTJ 649, holding that the law laid down by Special Bench does not have any precedential value. 2. That the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the above disallowance by following the order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the outset, submitted that the learned CIT(A) while sustaining the disallowance has followed the order of his predecessor in assessment year 2008-09. Learned counsel further submitted that in the said assessment year, the Tribunal has decided the issue in dispute in favour of the assessee and has also been upheld by the Hon ble High Court. In view of above, he submitted that as the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 4. On the contrary, the learned DR could not controvert the fact that the appeal in assessment year 2008-09 on the issue in dispute has been allowed in favour of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 7 of the scheme which entitles them to receive stock appreciation rights compensation under the scheme provided the participant satisfy the requirement of that particular scheme, the compensation is paid by the company to the participant in respect of this surrendered vested stock appreciation rights according to the scheme. According to the particular scheme the grant price was paid by the Granti who is an employee eligible to participate under the scheme. According to that scheme the 10 employees of the assessee company opted for the scheme and all of them exercised their stock appreciation rights. According to that ₹ 2505946 was sale proceeds of the stocks of the company, resulting into the loss of ₹ 1599362 which was clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. authorised representative. In view of this ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed reversing the decision of the Ld. CIT - A and directing the assessing officer to allow the sum of ₹ 669626/- on account of the difference between the purchase price of stock appreciation right in the sale price of such stock appreciation right on exercise by the employees of the appellant as these are revenue expenditure in nature. Further the Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in making the disallowance by enhancing the assessment of ₹ 1599306/- on account of difference between the sale price of the stock appreciation right and the exercise price of stock appreciation right paid to the employees of the appellant as it has already b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT-V1 , (2015) 378 ITR 33. For this reason, this question of law too does not arise. The third question urged is with respect to the disallowance under Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act. Here the Revenue authorities, including the CIT (A), disallowed certain amounts contending that the failure to deduct tax at source from the amount paid to other entities authorized the disallowance. The ITAT noted that the amounts were paid by way of reimbursement and that there was no finding to the effect that the reimbursement contained any income element. On account of these findings the court is of the opinion that no question of law arises on this aspect. The fourth ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
