sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 DCIT Circle 2(1) Gurgaon vs Kellog Brown & Roof Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. 16th Floor, Tower-A, DLF Building, Nos. 5, DLF Cyber Terraces, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon
 Dharam Pal, Garg R Kumar & Associates, 7, Adv. Chambers, RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad vs ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad
 Satish Singhal, 6, Patpar Road, Shivpuri, New Delhi vs ITO, Ward-11(1), New Delhi
 Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs. Commissioner Of Service Tax, Delhi
 Anupam Sushil Garg, S/o Shri Vijay Garg, C/o Venus Cinema, Railway Road, Saharanpur. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Saharanpur.
 Oriental Building & Furnishing Co.Ltd. C/o. Ravi Gupta, Advocate E-6A, Kailash Colony New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1) New Delhi.a
 Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula, Haryana
 Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited, Multi Location, Multi State
 Ranjana Sen Gupta Raghavan, H-1592, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-71(2), New Delhi
 M/s Sony India Private Limited A-31 , Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate New Delhi -44 vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax , Circle 24 (1), New Delhi
 Manik Singh S/o. Dr. Meharban Singh, A-47, Sector-31, Noida Uttar Pradesh Noida vs. DCIT Room No. 408, 4th Floor, A- 2D, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-24 Noida

DCIT-7(3) Mumbai Vs. Blow Plast Ltd. DGP House, 88-C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai 400 025
June, 19th 2014
                 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
                       MUMBAI BENCH "B", MUMBAI
        BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
                DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                             ITA No. 6402/Mum/2012
                              Assessment Year: 2006-07
         DCIT-7(3)                           Blow Plast Ltd.
         Mumbai                          Vs. DGP House, 88-C, Old
                                             Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai
                                             400 025
               (Appellant)                              (Respondent)
                   Permanent Account No. :-AAACB 0476 G

                          Appellant by    :   Shri J.P. Bairagra
                           Revenue by     :   Shri Vikas Agarwal

                     Date of hearing  : 16.06.2014
                Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2014

                                    ORDER

PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM:

      This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the
Ld.CIT(A)-13, Mumbai dated 25.07.2012 deleting the penalty of Rs.33,01,004/-
levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2007-
08.










2.    Briefly stated, the AO levied the impugned penalty on account of Employee
Stock Ownership Plan (ESOPs) liability claimed by the assessee as revenue
expenditure in the P & L Account. The AO disallowed the said claim of the assessee
as the same is not allowed under section 37(1) being not revenue in nature.
Accordingly, the AO disallowed the difference between the market price and the
price on which the shares were allotted to the employees under ESOPs as allowable
revenue expenditure. In the quantum appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the said
disallowance by following the decision of the Tribunal on the same issue in the case
of a group company M/s. VIP Industries Ltd. for A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 by relying
on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs.
                                                                        ITA No. 6402/Mum/2012
                                          2                                         Blow Plast Ltd.
                                                                         Assessment Year: 2006-07



ACIT 124 TTJ 771 (Del). On appeal against the penalty levied by the AO, the
Ld.CIT(A) deleted the impugned penalty as the assessee has not provided any
inaccurate particulars of income and also the issue of allowability of the expenditure
is a debatable one. Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the Revenue is in appeal
before us.







3.    Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it is
pertinent to mention that the issue whether or not ESOPs is an allowable deduction
as business expenditure has been very much a debatable issue when the Tribunal
decided the matter in quantum proceedings. It is observed that due to the divergent
views taken by the Tribunal, later on similar issue has been referred to the Special
Bench in the case of Biocom Ltd. Vs. DCIT (35 taxman.com 335) (Bangalore) SB and
vide order dated 16th July, 2013 it has been held by the Special Bench that discount
on issue of employees stock option is allowable as deduction in computing the
income under the head `Profits and Gains of business or Profession'. This indicates
that the impugned claim of deduction has been a debatable issue and by now the
Special Bench of the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. When
the issue is debatable and where there is a possibility of two sustainable views, it is
a well settled principle of law that penalty cannot be levied. Moreover, it is observed
that in the group concern case of the assessee in DCIT Vs. M/s. VIP Industries Ltd.
in ITA Nos. 6403, 6401/Mum/2012 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07
respectively, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of penalty by the Ld.CIT(A) as the
issue involved is debatable where two views are possible. In view of the
aforementioned discussion, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the
order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the impugned penalty levied by the AO. Thus, the
order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld.
4.    In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

     Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of June 2014.

              Sd/-                                                     Sd/-
        (SANJAY ARORA)                                      (Dr.S.T.M.PAVALAN)
     ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                       JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 16.06.2014.
*Srivastava
                                                                 ITA No. 6402/Mum/2012
                                        3                                    Blow Plast Ltd.
                                                                  Assessment Year: 2006-07




Copy to: The Appellant
         The Respondent
         The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
         The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai
         The DR "B" Bench

                              //True Copy//

                                                By Order

                                    Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Web Application Development Web based Software Solution Web Application Deployment Web Application Solutions Web Application Software Development Web Application Deployment Web Application Programming Web Application Design and Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions