ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INDIABULLS REAL ESTATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)-22, New Delhi’s in case No. 173/18-
19/CIT(A)-22, New Delhi dated 30.04.2019, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance under Section 14A r.w.
Rule
8D to the extent of Rs.1,18,44,320/- as against the sum of Rs.5,16,73,689/- worked out by the A.O.?
Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd.
2
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.43,01,604/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of excess claim of depreciation on software expenses?
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the additional claim of the assessee on account of Employees Stock Option Scheme compensation (ESOP expenses) amounting to Rs.96,248/-?”
Coming to the first and foremost islsue of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance which has been partly confirmed in the learned CIT(A)’s order, it emerges during the course of hearing this tribunal’s learned co-ordinate bench order in the assessee’s appeal ITA No. 5954/Del/2024 has already settled the issue against the department thereby holding that no valid satisfaction qua it’s books of account had been recorded u/s 14A(2) of the Act. We thus adopt judicial consistency to reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground in very terms therefore.
The Revenue’s second substantive ground herein seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing the assessee’s excess depreciation claim representing software expenses. It could hardly dispute that this tribunal learned co-ordinate bench in assessee’s case itself in assessment year 2012-13 involving ITA No. 6602/Del/2016 has already decided the same against the department thereby holding that the software in question Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd.
3
could not be in isolation so as to de-linked from the computers in operation. Rejected in very terms therefore.
Lastly comes the Revenue’s third substantive ground seeking to revive ESOP expenditure disallowance of Rs.96,248/- as deleted in the lower appellate discussion. Both the parties are again very fair in forming or that the tribunal’s above learned co-ordinate bench in assessment year 2012-13 has already rejected the Revenue’s very arguments in light of CIT Vs. Biocon Ltd. (2021) 131 taxmann.com 188 (SC) thereby treating the impugned claim of “ESOP” as an allowable revenue expenditure. Rejected accordingly.
All other ground or argument has not been pressed before us.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 14/11/2025. (Manish Agarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 14/11/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*