9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1045 - AT - Income TaxAdmissibility of fresh claims before appellate authorities - HELD THAT - Assessee could make an allowable claim before the appellate authorities and the same has to be considered as the limitation of revised return for making a claim applies to the powers of the assessing officer and not of the appellate authorities. Allowability of claim of ESOP (Employee Stock Option Plan) expenses - AO rejected the claim stating that ESOP cost could not be allowed as business expenditure, there is no expenditure incurred by the company towards ESOP cost - HELD THAT - As relying on own case 2023 (4) TMI 143 - ITAT KOLKATA Biocon Ltd. 2020 (11) TMI 779 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. 2024 (1) TMI 699 - MADRAS HIGH COURT the assessee is found to be eligible for deduction u/s 37 in respect of ESOP expenditure claimed and the same made in the course of the assessment proceeding shall be allowed by the AO. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Additional Claim of ESOP (Employee Stock Option Plan) Expenses. 2. Confirmation of Disallowance of ESOP Expenditure. 3. Right to Add, Alter, Amend, or Withdraw Grounds of Appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Additional Claim of ESOP (Employee Stock Option Plan) Expenses: The primary issue was whether the appellant could claim ESOP expenses amounting to Rs. 5,95,65,043/- during the assessment proceedings, which were not claimed in the original or revised return of income. The appellant argued that the ESOP costs were business expenditures under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and should be allowed as deductions. The appellant supported this claim with tax audit reports, balance sheets, and audited accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim, stating that ESOP costs were capital expenditures and not revenue expenditures, thus not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this decision, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that additional claims must be made via a revised return, not during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the limitation of making a claim through a revised return applies to the powers of the AO and not to appellate authorities. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Wipro Finance Ltd. v. CIT, which allowed fresh claims before appellate authorities, distinguishing it from Goetze (India) Ltd. 2. Confirmation of Disallowance of ESOP Expenditure: The appellant contended that ESOP costs should be considered business expenses under Section 37 of the Act. The AO and CIT(A) disagreed, viewing these costs as capital expenditures. The appellant cited several judicial precedents supporting the claim that ESOP costs are business expenditures, including decisions from the Karnataka High Court in Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT and the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, referencing multiple judicial precedents that categorized ESOP costs as business expenditures. The Tribunal noted that the ESOP costs were incurred to reward employees for their services, thus qualifying as business expenditures under Section 37. The Tribunal also highlighted that the ESOP costs were recorded in the books as per SEBI guidelines, reinforcing their legitimacy as business expenses. 3. Right to Add, Alter, Amend, or Withdraw Grounds of Appeal: The appellant reserved the right to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any grounds of appeal before or during the hearing. This issue was not separately adjudicated as it was a general procedural right. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant could make an allowable claim for ESOP expenses before the appellate authorities. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the ESOP expenditure as a business expense under Section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was supported by multiple judicial precedents, including those from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, affirming the allowability of ESOP costs as business expenditures.
|
