BenchBangalore, subsequently, in the case of Biocon Ltd. For this, the ld. In response, the appellant submitted that the correct computation of allowance for ESOP comes at Rs Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. However, an adjustment to the income is called for at the time of exercise of option by the amount of difference in the amount of discount calculated with reference the market price at the time of grant of option and the market price at the time of exercise of option. In both the situations, the employees stand compensated for their effort. Cheminvest Ltd.
ORDERBusiness expenditureAs per the terms of the agreement entered into between the assessee and the government schools, the assessee was to provide.
Info Edge India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) From the order of ld. and of the Chennai ITAT in the case of SSI Ltd. Vs. DCIT [85 TTJ ], ESOP expenses. S.S.I. Ltd. v. Dy.
Sandvik Asia P. Ltd, Pune V. ACIT Cir10 Pune, Pune ITAT ORDERS
CIT  85 TTJ (Chennai) (para 7), Dy. CIT v.
Video: Ssi ltd vs dcit Compliance vs. Security: What Are the Differences between these Cybersecurity Approaches?
Accenture Services (P.) Ltd. [I.T. Appeal No. (Mum.) ofdated.
Held: Discount on issue of ESOP being revenue expenditure was squarely covered in favour of the assessee company by decision of Special Bench, Bangalore Tribunal in the orders of Biocon Limited supra which is binding on the Bench. Discount under ESOP was in the nature of employees cost and was, hence, deductible during the vesting period with reference to the market price of share at the time of grant of options to the employees.
Thus, it was that discount on issue of Employees Stock option was allowable as deduction in computing the income under the head Profits and gains of Business or Profession.
Aggrieved from the order of the ld. CIT A and reiterated the submissions made before him. AR relied on the order of the ld.
S.S.I Limited v. DCIT () 85 TTJ 4. Ranbaxy laboratories Limited v. Add.
Video: Ssi ltd vs dcit If I have SSI or SSDI, do I file Taxes
CIT (ITA Nos. & /Del/)() (ITAT Delhi). 5. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF SSI LTD. VS. DCIT IN I TOA NO/ & WRIT PETITION NO/ WHEREBY TH. CIT VS. PVP VENTURES LTD.
- 90 DTR (MAD.) 2. SSI LTD. VS. DCIT 85 TTJ (CHN.) 3. STERLITE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. DCIT
The ground No. Para Post Comment.
Employees Stock Option Scheme Compensation expense allowable
Info Edge India Ltd. It, therefore, transpires that a company under the mercantile system can lawfully claim deduction for total discounted premium representing the employees cost over the vesting period at the rate at which there is vesting of options in the employees.
For this, the ld. BenchBangalore, subsequently, in the case of Biocon Ltd.
Court. Judgment. SSI Ltd vs. DCIT. Fav. (vi) SSI vs. DCIT () 85 TTJ (Chennai). 5. The ld. counsel for Ltd. vs. CIT () ITR 83(SC). (iii) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs.
The case laws relied by the ld. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. Featured Posts. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee and held that Employees Stock Option ESOP would not be treated as a Revenue expenditure, but it is a capital expenditure and there is no any flow of funds, therefore, no actual expenditure has been incurred by the company either in the form of capital expenditure or Revenue expenditure.
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 3 1. Keeping all these facts in view, we find that the ld.
Ssi ltd vs dcit
|No accounting principle can be determinative in the matter of computation of total income under the Act.
Discount under ESOP was in the nature of employees cost and was, hence, deductible during the vesting period with reference to the market price of share at the time of grant of options to the employees. In the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has charged in the profit and loss account, an amount of Rs.
It was next submitted in respect of ground No. Oriental Structural Engineering Pvt. Fact would also be verified by AO to ensure that the overall expenditure booked by the assessee company was restricted only to the extent of the exercised options.