How many judgments cite CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd.?

143 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd. (211 Taxmann 554), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 250, Section 115JB, Section 132.

CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd.

211 Taxmann 554High Court2012#708 most cited

What is CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd. authority for?

Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenses are an allowable business deduction. Such costs are to be recognized and deducted over the vesting period, as they are not considered contingent in nature.

143

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd. · PVP Ventures Ltd. · Section 37(1) · ESOP expenses · employee stock option plan · allowability of deduction · vesting period · share-based payments · contingent expenses

Also reported as

23 Taxmann.com 28690 DTR 340

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 250 Section 115JB Section 132 Section 139 Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(15a)section 17(2)(iiia)profit split method section 17(2)section 92ca(4)cost plus method comparable uncontrolled price method section 43a interest on interest section 32(1)(iia)section 80h interest free advances

Judgments citing CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd.

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6986/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. R. S.SamariaFor Respondent: Shri B S Bisht

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 37

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, C ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member ITA Nos.6990/Mum/2013 & 6986/Mum/2013 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 ACIT 4(3) People Interactive India Private 6TH Floor, Room No. 649 Limited, 205, Shiv E Numh v. 2nd Floor,Dr.Annie Besant Aayakar Bhawan,Mumbai- 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 PAN AAECCS7931B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year 2009-10 People Interactive India Private ACIT 4(3) 6TH Floor, Room No. 649 Limited, 205, Shiv E Numh v…

People Interactive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 4979/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. R. S.SamariaFor Respondent: Shri B S Bisht

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 37

M/S Subex Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Radhakrishna, CIT-III(DR)

Section 115JSection 263Section 35D

…counsel for the Assessee has before us placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governors 312 ITR 254 and the decision of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. PVP Ventures Ltd. (2012) 23 Taxmann.com 286 (Mad.). Page 35 of 38 39. The factual position that the exchange fluctuation is owing to restatement of FCCBs is not disputed. The admitted position is that FCCBs were issued for purpose of acquisition of a new industrial undertaking and was therefore on capital account. The Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor (supra)…