← All Phrases

“draft assessment order”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C4,773 judgments

The decision most relied on for draft assessment order is ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. (454 ITR 312), cited in 580 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on draft assessment order

ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.
454 ITR 312 · 2023 · High Court
580
citing judgments

Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for assessment orders in search cases. While elaborate reasons for approval are not required, the approving authority must provide some indication that it has examined the draft orders and found them to meet the requirements of law.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal
149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court
194
citing judgments

Approval of draft assessment orders under Section 153D must be granted with due application of mind, not mechanically. Approving multiple cases, such as 38 in a single day, without proper scrutiny amounts to mechanical approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP
369 ITR 113 · 2014 · High Court
140
citing judgments

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India
388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court
71
citing judgments

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT
398 ITR 189 · 2017 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The requirement to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act is mandatory. A final assessment order issued without such a draft order is a nullity, constituting an incurable jurisdictional error that cannot be saved by Section 292B, even in set-aside proceedings following an ITAT remand.

Aggarwal v. NFAC
127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC
128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Chandrakant Dharia v. ITO
469 ITR 262 · Reported
34
citing judgments

An adverse assessment order cannot be passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the taxpayer. Where income is to be varied based on evidence, a personal hearing is mandatory.

Judgments citing draft assessment order

Mayank Bansal, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1016/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 80G

nothing but just a tax saving tool, whereby cash is received back against the amount paid. 6.3 The assessee was issued a draft assessment order cum show cause on 22.06.2021 whereby the entire deduction claimed u/s 80G of Rs. 26,12,500/- was proposed to be disallowed and added back

M/S. Skylark Fiscal Sevices Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153B

instant case, since the Appellant was an "eligible assessee" as defined in section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Officer had passed a Draft Assessment Order dated 27 December 2017 u/s. 144C(1) r.w.s. 144A/147/143(3) of the Act making adjustments to the total income as returned by the Appellant

M/S. Skylark Fiscal Sevices Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 240/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153B

instant case, since the Appellant was an "eligible assessee" as defined in section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Officer had passed a Draft Assessment Order dated 27 December 2017 u/s. 144C(1) r.w.s. 144A/147/143(3) of the Act making adjustments to the total income as returned by the Appellant

The Boston Consulting Group India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1760/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi

Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Technology Cost allocation (IT Cost allocation) – ₹.4,25,00,327 3. Aggrieved, Assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld.DRP") against the draft assessment order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer incorporating the TP Adjustments proposed by the Ld. TPO. The Ld. DRP confirmed the additions proposed ... draft assessment order vide DRP Directions dated 28.11.2014. In pursuance to the Ld. DRP's directions, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order dated 22.11.2015 making total additions of ₹.6,92,35,403/-. 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - Page

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

respect of provision of marketing support services by the assessee referred to its associated enterprises (AE). A draft assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act was passed by the ld AO on 28.09.2021 determining the total income of the assessee

First Abu Dhabi Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3279/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhfirst Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Pjsc, Unit No.1101 & Income-Tax (It), Circle 1201 Platina Building, C- 2(3)(1), Room No. 1614, 59, G Block, Bandra Kurla 16Th Floor, Air India Complex, Bandra East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaecn2845F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai-2, Dated 20.07.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: 1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Ao Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Initiating & Completing Assessment Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Without Issuing A Valid Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Ie, The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Dated 29 June 2021 For Initiating Assessment Was Issued By National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Instead Of Being Issued By The Learned Ao (I.E Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) 2. Ground No. 2:

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 80G

amount paid to non-resident, therefore, the sum of Rs.84,007/- was disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act as per the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C(1) of the Act on 27.09.2022. 4. The assessee filed objection before the DRP. The DRP vide order dated

Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumara.Y. : 2016-17 Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Acit, 1C, Front Part Of Front Building, National E-Assessment Centre, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech-Ii, Greater New Delhi. Noida 201306, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecd 8832 G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dua, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Dua, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 2Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43(6)Section 43B

total adjustment of Rs. 2,16,12,356/- to the international transactions of the assessee with its AE, consequently the AO passed draft Assessment Order. 4. Aggrieved with the Draft Assessment Order u/s 144C(5), the assessee preferred to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, New Delhi ... vide order dated 27/02/2020 providing the complete relief to the assessee on the proposed addition made by the AO in Draft Assessment Order u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 5. The AO/ National e-Assessment Centre after the DRP's Order passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

Js Capital Llc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle 3 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Js Capital Llc, Acit (International C/O Vasa Chauhan & Taxation) Associates, Circle-3(1)(1), Off. No.41, 3Rd Floor, Room No.1605, Vs. 16Th Floor, Hi Life Premises, P.M. Road, Air India Building, Santacruz West, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 054 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaecj2857M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Hirali Desai, A.R. Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R. Shri Nirmal Hardik, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07 . 02 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 02 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Amarjit Singh: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Acit, International Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Mumbai Dated 26.07.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The [Final Assessment] Order [Dated 26 July 2023] Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax - International Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Mumbai

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, D.R
Section 111ASection 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 270ASection 70(2)

STCL on sale of equity shares (STT paid) cannot be set off against the said gain. Therefore the AO has passed the draft assessment order on 17.09.2022 under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act and proposed an addition of Rs.27,64,05,202/- to the total

Saic Motor Overseas Intelligent Mobility Technology Co . Ltd., Shanghai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Hsiidc Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2194/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

commercial or scientific nature. 4.2 The submissions of the assessee were not found tenable by the Ld. AO who proceeded to pass a draft assessment order on 29.09.2022 holding that information imparted by the assessee coded in the form of map, navigation, weather etc. amounts to royalty under

Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-27(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3923/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234C

determined transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 33,29,387/-. Subsequent to receipt of order from the TPO, the Assessing Officer ('AO') passed the draft assessment order dated December 22, 2017 and thereafter, final Assessment Order dated February 15, 2018 came to be passed, wherein the AO made the following adjustment

Pramod Tarade, Raigad vs. CIT ( NFAC ), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 898/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

erroneous, unjustified, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 8. The CIT (A) NFAC failed to appreciate that the draft assessment order under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 9. The assessee/objector craves

M/S. Mahima Fibres Private Limited, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 163/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahima Fibres Private Ltd. Pr. Cit, 406, Corporate House, Rnt Indore -1 Marg Vs. Indore -452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccm4603N Assessee By Shri Manoj Gupta & Pankaj Shah Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

show cause notice dated 22.01.2021 whereby the AO asked the assessee as to why the assessment should not be completed as per draft assessment order Page 3 of 10 ITANo.163/Ind/2023 Mahima fibres P. Ltd. and consequently assessment order was passed. He has referred to para 4 & 4.1 of the assessment

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer

ITA 497/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

based on the details made available supported by the accompanied documents in support of the return of income filed by the assessee the draft assessment order u/s. 144C (1) r.w.s. 144B dated 23.04.2021 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee has furnished its reply vide letter dated

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 490/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

based on the details made available supported by the accompanied documents in support of the return of income filed by the assessee the draft assessment order u/s. 144C (1) r.w.s. 144B dated 23.04.2021 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee has furnished its reply vide letter dated

Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

project expense(s) not done for earning revenue during the year and added the same to the income of the assessee in Draft Assessment Order under section 144C r.w. section 143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2017. The assessee filed objection before the Hon’ble DRP against treating the said

Mahalinga Textiles, Theni vs. ITO, Ward-1, Theni

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly- allowed

ITA 1296/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 11. The Draft Assessment Order along with computation of total income was sent to the assessee through SCN Module on 29.03.2022. In response to the same, the assessee

Pacific Internet India P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3729/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

No.3729/Mum/2016 :: 3 :: 5. In pursuance to the Ld. DRP order dated 21.01.2015 u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, the AO accordingly passed the draft assessment order dated 30.03.2015 u/s.144 of the Act, whereby, the AO made the addition/disallowance of Rs.1,53,81,423/- as per TP order and disallowance of Rs.2 ... Rs.68,64,147/-, operating cost of Rs.66,24,386/- and finance cost of Rs.13,96,807/-. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved against the draft assessment order preferred a petition u/s.144C of the Act before the Ld. DRP who vide order dated 28.12.2015 u/s.144C(5) of the Act, though rejected objections

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 381/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in not holding that the order dated 29 January 2015 passed by Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the draft assessment order issuedby the Assessing Officer (in so far it relates to transfer pricing proceedings) are void ab initio as none of the conditions of section

Automation Anywhere Inc., Usa vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 3418/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaautomation Anywhere Inc., Vs. Dcit 633, River Oaks Parkway, Circle San Jose, Ca 95134, Usa Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), Pan No.Aamca9481A Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(50)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156

under: "4.2.7 The panel has considered the submissions of the assessee as well as the argument of the AO in the draft assessment order. The submissions made and the arguments taken by the assessee are similar to those placed before the AO during assessment proceedings. After inquiries through a series ... core functioning of the assessee company is executed from the Indian premises. As observed by the AO in para 8 of the draft Assessment order, the employees of the assessee visited India regularly for almost the entire part of the year and operated from the fixed premises of assesses

Bhartiya International Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2110/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 156Section 195Section 40

under: “12. Ground No.4 concerns additions of Rs.2,03,96,540/- on account of disallowance of ESOP expenses. 12.1 As per the draft assessment order, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed Rs.2,03,96,540/- under Section 37(1) of the Act under the head ‘employees ESOP compensation