Held that the additional compensation cost had been rightly debited as expenditure by the assessee in the year of vesting, i. e., AY. 2012-13, in accordance with the Special Bench decision and the Principal Commissioner had invoked revisionary jurisdiction based on incorrect assumption of fact. Revision is not valid.   As regards book profit   the interest partook of the character of Income-tax and the Income-tax demand was to be added back while computing book profits under Explanation 1(a) to section 115JB(2). Therefore, the action of the Principal Commissioner in invoking revisional jurisdiction was upheld in this regard. (AY.  2012-13, 2013-14)