THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAP INDIA PVT LTD,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/49/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01005120202428 January 2025Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the expenditure towards ESOPs is an allowable expenditure as per Section 37(1) of the IT Act, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the taxability of expenditure towards ESOPs. The High Court noted that the issue was similar to a previously decided case.

What were the issues?

Whether expenditure towards ESOPs is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3688-DB ITA No. 49 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.

2.

THE DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SAP INDIA PVT. LTD., 6TH FLOOR, RMZ ECOWORLD, 8A CAMPUS, SARJAPUR, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, DEVERABEESANAHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 103 PAN AACCS 7483E …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGESWAR RAO D.D., ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO. 875/BANG/2022, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-2019. PRAYING TO 1 FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN.

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3688-DB ITA No. 49 of 2024

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant having argued the matter for sometime very fairly submits that the subject matter of this appeal is substantially similar to the one in I.T.A.No.65 of 2024 between the PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, heard and disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19th August, 2024.

2.

The Co-ordinate Bench at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 has observed as under:

"7. Although learned counsel for Revenue does not dispute the proposition of law as held by the Tribunal and as laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Biocon Ltd., it is sought to be contended that the relevant material has not been placed by the assessee to claim the said deduction. The DRP while considering the said aspect has noticed various legal provisions and disallowed the same. However, the position of law

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3688-DB ITA No. 49 of 2024

as relied on by the Tribunal not having been disputed, considering a question of fact in the present appeal does not arise and hence the contention sought to be put forth by the Revenue in the present appeal is liable to be rejected.

8.

It is clear and forthcoming that the Revenue had sought to contend in the present appeal that the expenditure towards ESPO is not an allowable expenditure as per Section 37(1) of the IT Act. However, this Court in the case of Biocon Ltd., having categorically held that the same is an allowable expenditure, there is no merit in the contention sought to be put forth by the Revenue.

9.

In view of the aforementioned, and as no substantial question of law would arise, it is not a case for admission, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit".

In view of the above, no substantial question of law would arise in this case too and therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the assessee by speed post immediately.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11/CT:SNN

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →