The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. Indiamart Intelmesh Ltd. Through: None

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 80/2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus INDIAMART INTELMESH LTD. Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA % O R D E R24.01.2018 The question urged by the Revenue in this case relates to the violation of the ESOP option provided by the assessee to its employees. The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss claimed on the ground that it was not a crystallised liability of the assessee. The CIT (A) and the ITAT by concurrent findings followed the judgment of the Madras High Court inMadras High Court in CIT v. P.V.P. Ventures Ltd. (TC(A)No.1023/2005) as well as the decision of this Court in CIT v Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.(ITA 2/2002, decided on 04.08.2015) and held that issue of debentures or obtaining loans are to be considered as revenue expenditure and consequently the cost of ESOP should be debited to the profit & loss account of the assessee. These decisions were later applied in CIT v. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. ITA 80/2018 Page 1 of 2 (ITA 107/2015, decided on 18.08.2015). In the circumstances, the view of the ITAT is reasonable and justified. No question of law arises. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J JANUARY 24, 2018 /vikas/ A. K. CHAWLA, J ITA 80/2018 Page 2 of 2