THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

I. T. A. NO.654 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

1 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE.

2 . THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S BIOCON LTD., 20TH KM, HOSUR ROAD ELECTRONIC CITY, HEBBAGODI BANGALORE-560100 …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16/07/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.370/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 2006, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN; AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.370/BANG/2010 DATED 16/07/2013 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been preferred by the Revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the assessment year 2005- 06. This appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2014 to examine the substantial question of law. (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the discount on issue of ESOP is allowable deduction in computing the income under the head profits and gains of the business?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that difference between market price of the shares at the time of grant of option and offer price amounts to discount and the same has to be

treated as remuneration to the employees for their continuity of service?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal committed an error in not examining the scheme of ESOP from which it is clear that the employees will not get any right in the shares till completion of the period prescribed and the expenditure claimed is contingent and recorded perverse finding?

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE