Case Law Details
HDFC Bank Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that the ESOP expenses claimed by the assessee is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Facts- Issue involved here is that assessee for the first time made the claim before the CIT(A) with regard to ESOP expense. However, CIT(A) did not allow the claim of assessee following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(A) also did not accept the submission of the assessee that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Biocon Ltd. (2020) 430 IR 151 (Kar. HC).
Conclusion- Based on jurisdictional High Court’s judgement in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders it is held that the CIT(A) is not correct in not admitting the claim of the assessee with regard to ESOP expenses.
Further, based on Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgement in the case of Biocon Ltd. it is held that the ESOP expenses claimed by the assessee an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
