2019 (8) TMI 1771 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of expenditure - Allowance of ESOP expenditure - Whether it is a revenue expenditure actually incurred by the company as per the provisions of the IT Act? - AO disallowed ESOP expenditure by stating that there is no expenditure incurred and the expenditure crystallises only on the date on which the employee exercises option and any expenses claimed during vesting period is contingent in nature and that the expenditure on ESOP is a capital expenditure - CIT-A allowed the claim of assessee - HELD THAT - CIT (A) very categorically analysed that the objections raised by Ld. AO in present case has been addressed by Special Bench of this Tribunal in Biocon 2013 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT BANGALORE in favour of assessee AR submitted that shares were allotted to employees during year under consideration and therefore in our considered opinion ratio of decision of Special Bench in Biocon (supra) squarely covers the issue - No infirmity in the view taken by Ld. CIT (A) and the same is upheld. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowance of ESOP expenses to the assessee.
2. Disallowance of ESOP expenditure by the Assessing Officer.
3. Interpretation of ESOP expenses as capital expenditure.
4. Application of decisions by Special Bench, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case pertains to the allowance of ESOP expenses to the assessee. The Revenue challenged the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) on the grounds that ESOP expenses were not revenue expenditure actually incurred by the company. The Ld. CIT (A) relied on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of M/s Biocon Ltd. to provide relief to the assessee, which was further supported by the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court in similar cases.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld the allowance of ESOP expenses to the assessee, citing the settled view in favor of the assessee by the Special Bench in the case of Biocon Ltd. The Ld. AO had disallowed the ESOP expenditure, arguing that the expenses claimed during the vesting period were contingent in nature and considered the expenditure as capital expenditure. However, the Ld. CIT (A) analyzed the case in detail, considering the fair market value of equity shares, employee compensation expenses, and the treatment of sweat equity shares, ultimately allowing the expenditure in favor of the assessee.

3. The Ld. CIT (A) further highlighted that the objections raised by the Ld. AO had already been addressed by the Special Bench in the Biocon case, supporting the position of the assessee. The shares were allotted to employees during the year under consideration, aligning with the decision of the Special Bench. Consequently, the view taken by the Ld. CIT (A) was upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

4. The judgment emphasized the application of decisions by the Special Bench, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court in similar cases, which favored the position of the assessee regarding the allowance of ESOP expenses. The comprehensive analysis of the facts and legal precedents led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the thorough consideration of the ESOP expenses issue and the application of relevant legal principles and precedents to arrive at a just decision.