DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S NOVA MEDICAL CENTRES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3429/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 January 2020AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed a binding Special Bench decision of the Tribunal. Despite the Revenue's appeal to the High Court, there was no stay on the Tribunal's order, making it operative.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of an addition made by the AO on account of the cost of Employees' Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenses. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition by following a Special Bench decision of the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the deletion of ESOP expenses by the CIT(A) was justified, especially when the Revenue's appeal against a binding Tribunal order was pending before the High Court without a stay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 09.01.2020Pronounced: 10.01.2020

BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Assessment Year : 2013 – 14 M/s Nova Medical Centers Pvt. Ltd., No. 128, 5th Floor, Golden Towers, Old Airport Road, DCIT, Circle – 2 (3) (1), vs. Behind HDFC Bank, Kodihalli, Bangalore Bangalore – 560017. PAN: AACCN9242N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2020 O R D E R

PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, AM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the revenue and it is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 2 Bengaluru dated 31.10.2018 for A. Y. 2013 – 14.

2.

Only one ground is raised by the revenue as per which the grievance of revenue is about deletion of the addition of Rs. 722,20,450/- made by the A. O. on account of cost of Employees Shares based payments (ESOP) Expenses. 3. In course of hearing, learned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order and he filed written submissions also in which, this is the main argument that learned CIT (A) has followed a tribunal order passed by special bench of the tribunal rendered in the case of Biocon Limited vs. DCIT, 144 ITD 21 but the ITA Nos.3429(B)/2018 Page 2 of 3 department has gone for an appeal before Hon’ble Karnataka High Court against this tribunal order and the issue has not reached finality. Learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A) and she placed reliance on the following Judicial Pronouncements in addition to the order of the special bench of the tribunal followed by CIT (A) as noted above: - (a) CIT vs. PVP Ventures Ltd., 23 taxman. Com 286 (Madras), (b) Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. In dated 30.09.2013, (c) DCIT vs. L & T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd. In ITA No. 3636/Mum/2017 dated 30.10.2018 4. We have considered rival submissions. We find that learned CIT (A) has followed a decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal and although an appeal is filed by the revenue against this tribunal order before Hon’ble Karnataka High Court but this is not the case of the revenue that operation of this tribunal order is stayed. Hence, this tribunal order is very much in force and is binding on us. We therefore, decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A) and for that, we do not support of any other Judicial Pronouncement.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →