9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant to Religare Enterprises Ltd. Employees SAR Trust ('the Trust') for the purpose of administering Employee Stock Appreciation Right Scheme ('SAR scheme'), which was not meant to be and, in fact, not recovered from the latter in accordance with the SAR scheme. 1.2 That the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the above SAR scheme was implemented to motivate, reward and retain key employees whereby each SAR granted to the employees of the appellant stood equivalent to one share of Religare Enterprises Ltd. ('REL') and the aforesaid differential amount was, thus, in the nature of employee benefit allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 1.3 Without prejudice, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of the aforesaid amount of loan written off as loss incidental to business under section 28 of the Act. 2. That the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in enhancing the income of the appellant by directing further disallowance of Rs. 29,19,920 on account of difference between the sale price of SAR and the exercise pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch, 2010 declaring a total taxable income of Rs. 58,19,36,538/- and the said return was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the year under consideration, the assessee company was engaged in providing different kind of services such as granting of loan, corporate advisory services and distribution of dividend etc. The Assessing Officer assessed the total taxable income of the appellant at Rs. 60,32,27,878/-, after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Nature of Disallowance Amount (Rs.) 1 Disallowance of expenses related to implementation of the Religare Employee Stock Appreciation Right Scheme 2007 1,257,382 2. Additional disallowance under section 14Aof the Act 2,499,997 3. Disallowance of processing fee paid to banks under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non deduction of tax at source 9,333,953 4. Expenses disallowed under section 40A(2)(a) of the Act 8,185,383 5. Restriction of depreciation claimed on UPS to 15% 14,625 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against the order of the learned CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , being Rs. 503.79 per share less Rs. 140/- and that crystallized at the beginning itself on purchase of the shares by the trust. This amount was amortized on estimated basis by the management over a period of 3 years, which was the vesting period over which this stock appreciation rights would be exercised by the employees equally each year. On analyzing the scheme of these stock appreciation rights. It was held by the Ld. first appellate authority that it is akin to the employee's stock option schemes. The issue of deductibility of ESOP expenditure has been decided extensively by the special bench of ITAT in Biocon Limited V DCIT (LTU ) Bangalore in 144 ITD 21 as under :- "8. We will take up these three steps one by one for consideration and decision. I. WHETHER ANY DEDUCTION OF SUCH DISCOUNT IS ALLOWABLE ? 9.1 The crux of the arguments put forth by the ld. AR is that discount under ESOP is nothing but employees cost incurred by the assessee for which deduction is warranted. On the other hand, the Revenue has set up a case that no deduction can be allowed as such discount is not only a short capital receipt but also a contingent liability. A. Is discount under ESOP a sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. (supra) granting deduction of such discount by treating it as an employee cost. He submitted that the above view taken by the Chennai Bench has been approved by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd. [2012] 211 Taxman 554/23 taxmann.com 286. The learned AR argued that PVP Ventures Ltd. (supra) is a solitary judgment rendered by any High Court on the issue and hence the same needs to be followed in preference to any contrary Tribunal order. It was also pointed out that the Chennai bench's view has been subsequently followed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in Asstt. CIT v. Spray Engineering Devices Ltd. [2012] 23 taxmann.com 267/53 SOT 70 (URO). 9.2.3 Let us examine the facts of the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra), which has been strongly relied by the learned Departmental Representative. It deals with a situation in which the assessee granted stock option to its employees. The shares were to be issued at Rs. 559 per share as against the face value of Rs. 10 and the market price on the date of grant at Rs. 738.95 per share. The assessee treated the difference between Rs. 738.95 and Rs. 595 as employees compensation in the books of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the service of the company, such options vest with the employees. The options are then exercised by the employees by making application to the employer for the issue of shares against the options vested in them. The gap between the completion of vesting period and the time for exercising the options is usually negligible. The company, on the exercise of option by the employees, allots shares to them who can then freely sell such shares in the open market subject to the terms of the ESOP. Thus it can be seen that it is during the vesting period that the options granted to the employees vest with them. This period commences with the grant of Page 9 of 25 option and terminates when the options so granted vest in the employees after serving the company for the agreed period. By granting the options, the company gets a sort of assurance from its employee for rendering uninterrupted services during the vesting period and as a quid pro quo it undertakes to compensate the employees with a certain amount given in the shape of discounted premium on the issue of shares. 9.2.5 The core of the arguments of the ld. DR in this regard is twofold. First, that it is not an expenditure in itse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the premium is given to the employees in lieu of their services and two, when the shares are directly issued to employees at a reduced rate. In both the situations, the employees stand compensated for their effort. If under the first situation, the company, say, on receipt of premium amounting to Rs. 100 from issue of shares to public, gives Rs. 60 as incentive to its employees, such incentive of Rs. 60 would be remuneration to employees and hence deductible. In the same way, if the company, instead, issues shares to its employees at a premium of Rs. 40, the discounted premium of Rs. 60, being the Page 10 of 25 difference between Rs. 100 and Rs. 40, is again nothing but a different mode of awarding remuneration to employees for their continued services. In both the cases, the object is to compensate employees to the tune of Rs. 60. It follows that the discount on premium under ESOP is simply one of the modes of compensating the employees for their services and is a part of their remuneration. Thus, the contention of the ld. DR that by issuing shares to employees at a discounted premium, the company got a lower capital receipt, is bereft of an force. The sole object of issuing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction u/s 37(1) subject to the fulfilment of other conditions. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the word 'expenditure' has not been defined in the Act. However, sec. 2(h) of the Expenditure Act, 1957 defines 'expenditure' as : 'Any sum of money or money's worth spent or disbursed or for the spending or disbursing of which a liability has been incurred by an assessee......'. When section 43(2) of the Act is read in conjunction with section 37(1), the meaning of the term 'expenditure' turns out to be the same as is there in the aforequoted part of the definition under section 2(h) of the Expenditure Act, Page 11 of 25 1957, viz., not only 'paying out' but also 'incurring'. Coming back to our context, it is seen that by undertaking to issue shares at discounted premium, the company does not pay anything to its employees but incurs obligation of issuing shares at a discounted price on a future date in lieu of their services, which is nothing but an expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. 9.2.8 Though discount on premium is nothing but an expenditure u/s 37(1), it is worth noting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of any ascertained liability can arise. He submitted that during the entire vesting period, it is only a contingent liability and no deduction is admissible under the provisions of the Act for a contingent liability. The options so granted may lapse during the vesting period itself by reason of termination of employment or some of the employees may not choose to exercise the option even after rendering the services during the vesting period. It was, therefore, argued that the discount is nothing but a contingent liability during the vesting period not calling for any deduction. In the opposition, the learned AR submitted that the amount of Page 12 of 25 discount claimed by the assessee as deduction is not a contingent liability but an ascertained liability. He stated that in the ESOP 2000, there is a vesting period of four years, which means that the options to the extent of 25% of the total grant would vest with the eligible employees at the end of first year after rendering unhindered service for one year and it would go on till the completion of four years. 9.3.2 It is a trite law and there can be no quarrel over the settled legal position that deduction is permissibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain." From the above enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is manifest that a definite business liability arising in an accounting year qualifies for deduction Page 13 of 25 even though the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. We consider it our earnest duty to mention that the legislature has inserted clause (f) to section 43B by providing that "any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employee" shall be allowed as deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such sum is actually paid. With this legislative amendment, the application of the ratio decidendi in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra) to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt would be determined, is akin to the quantification of the precise liability taking place at a future date, thereby not disturbing the otherwise liability which stood incurred at the end of the each year on availing the services. 9.3.6 As regards the contention of the ld. DR about the contingent liability arising on account of the options lapsing during the vesting period or the employees not choosing to exercise the option, we find that normally it is provided in the schemes of ESOP that the vested options that lapse due to non-exercise and/or unvested options that get cancelled due to resignation of the employees or otherwise, Page 14 of 25 would be available for grant at a future date or would be available for being re-granted at a future date. If we consider it at micro level qua each individual employee, it may sound contingent, but if view it at macro level qua the group of employees as a whole, it loses the tag of 'contingent' because such lapsing options are up for grabs to the other eligible employees. In any case, if some of the options remain unvested or are not exercised, the discount hitherto claimed as deduction is required to be reversed and offered for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o argue contrary. Once it is held as a consideration for employment, the natural corollary which follows is that such discount (i) is an expenditure; (ii) such expenditure is on account of an ascertained (not contingent) liability ; and (iii) it cannot be treated as a short capital receipt. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that discount on shares under the ESOP is an allowable deduction. II. IF YES, THEN WHEN AND HOW MUCH? Page 15 of 25 10.1 Having seen that the discount under ESOP is a deductible expenditure u/s 37(1), the next question is that 'when' and for 'how much' amount should the deduction be granted ? 10.2 The assessee is a limited company and hence it is obliged to maintain its accounts on mercantile basis. Under such system of accounting, an item of income becomes taxable when a right to receive it is finally acquired notwithstanding the fact that when such income is actually received. Even if such income is actually received in a later year, its taxability would not be evaded for the year in which right to receive was finally acquired. In the same manner, an expense becomes deductible when liability to pay aris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for 25 shares at the discounted premium at the time of exercise of option. In that case, the benefit which would have accrued to him at the end of the second, third and fourth years would stand forfeited. Thus it becomes abundantly clear that an employee becomes entitled to the shares at a discounted premium over the vesting period depending upon the length of service provided by him to the company. In all such schemes, it is at the end of the vesting period that option is exercisable albeit the Page 16 of 25 proportionate right to option is acquired by rendering service at the end of each year. 10.4 Similar is the position from the stand point of the company. An obligation falls upon the company to allot shares at the time of exercise of option depending upon the length of service rendered by the employee during the vesting period. The incurring of liability towards the discounted premium, being compensation to employee, is directly linked with the span of service put in by the employee. In the above illustration, when 25 out of 100 shares vest in the employee after rendering one year's service, the company also incurs equal obligation at the end of the first year for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tization of discounted value of option over a period of three years. The CIT revised such order by directing the A.O. to disallow ESOP expenditure of Rs. 66.82 lakh. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, it was held that the expenditure in that behalf was an ascertained liability and not contingent upon happening of certain events. It was further noticed that the assessee claimed deduction of such discount on ESOP by following the SEBI Page 17 of 25 Guidelines. As the expenditure itself was an ascertained liability, the Tribunal held that the same to be deductible. 10.7 Before proceeding further it would be befitting to take stock of the nutshell of the SEBI Guidelines in this regard. These Guidelines provide for granting of deduction on account of discount on issue of options during the vesting period. It has been so explained with the help of an example in Schedule I to the Guidelines. For the sake of simplicity, we are taking an instance under which an option of share with face value of Rs. 10 is given under ESOP to employees at the option price of Rs. 10 as against the market price of such shares at Rs. 110 on that date. Further suppose that the vesting period is four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exercise of option or when the options remain unvested or lapse at the end of the exercise period. It is at this later stage that the provisional amount of discount on ESOP, initially quantified on the basis of market price at the time of grant of options, needs to be suitably adjusted with the actual amount of discount. Page 18 of 25 11.1.3 As regards the adjustment of discount when the options remain unvested or lapse at the end of the exercise period, it is but natural that there is no employee cost to that extent and hence there can be no deduction of discount qua such part of unvested or lapsing options. But, as the amount was claimed as deduction by the company during the period starting with the date of grant till the happening of this event, such discount needs to be reversed and taken as income. It is so because logically when the options have not eventually vested in the employees, to that extent, the company has incurred no employee cost. And if there is no cost to the company, the tentative amount of deduction earlier claimed on the basis of the market price at the time of grant of option ceases to be admissible and hence needs to be reversed. The ld. AR stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count on ESOP is taxable as perquisite u/s 17(2)(vi) for : 'the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares allotted or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former employer, free of cost or at concessional rate to the assessee'. Clause (c) of Explanation to section 17(2)(vi) provides that : 'the value of any specified security or sweat equity Page 19 of 25 shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or sweat equity shares, as the case may be, on the date on which the option is exercised by the assessee as reduced by the amount actually paid by, or recovered from, the assessee in respect of such security or shares'. Two things surface from the above provisions. First, that the perquisite arises on the 'allotment' of shares and second, the value of such perquisite is to be computed by considering the fair market value of the shares on 'the date on which the option is exercised' by the assessee as reduced by the amount actually paid. The position that such amount was or was not taxable during some of the years in the hands of the employees is not relevant in considering the occasion and the amount of be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis. It is this market price at the time of the grant of options which is considered for working out the amount of discount during the vesting period. But, since actual amount of employees cost can be precisely determined only at the time of the exercise of option by the employees, the provisional amount of discount availed as deduction during the vesting period needs to be adjusted in the light Page 20 of 25 of the actual discount on the basis of the market price of the shares at the time of exercise of options. It can be done by making suitable northwards or southwards adjustment at the time of exercise of option. This can be explained with the following example with the assumption of vesting period of four years and the benefit vesting at 25% each at the end of 1st to 4th years:- At the time of granting option At the time of exercise of option Situation I Situation II Situation III Market value per share 110 110 130 90 Option price 10 10 10 10 Employees compensation or Discount 100 100 120 80 11.1.7 From the above table it can be noticed that the market price of the shares at the time of grant of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is correct, it would mean that the first two stages have been rightly given effect to. But the appellant assessee does not appear to have made any downward adjustment to the amount of discount at the time of exercise of option by the employees with the difference in the market price of the shares at the time of grant of option and price at the time of exercise of option. The argument seems to be that the SEBI Guidelines do not provide for such downward adjustment. It has been argued by the ld. AR that where the provisions of the Act specifically provide for treatment of a particular source of income in a particular manner, then the germane provision should be followed. If, however, there is no specific provision dealing with an issue in the Act, then the accounting principles should be adhered to while determining the total income of the assessee. In this regard, he relied on the judgment in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd.'s (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the interest payable on capital borrowed by the assessee for purchase of plant and machinery before the commencement of business should be capitalized on the basis of accepted accountancy rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar item of expense or taxation of a particular item of income. General provisions are those which set out the overall principles to govern the deductibility or taxability of unspecified items. For example, the definition of 'income' u/s 2(24) has been given by the Act in an inclusive manner. There have been enshrined clauses (i) to (xvi) dealing with the items specifically listed. However, the provision has been couched in such a way so as to include general items of receipts having character of income, even though not specifically mentioned. Similar is the position regarding deductions. Under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession', there are sections granting deductions in respect of specific expenses or allowances. Similarly, there is section 37(1), which grants deduction for expenses not specifically set out in other sections, if the conditions stipulated in the section, are fulfilled. All other items of expenses, which fulfil the requisite conditions, gain deductibility under section 37(1). To put it in simple words, this section is a specific provision for granting deduction in respect of the unspecified or the general categories of expenses. Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y no role to play in the matter of determination of total income under the Act. If an accounting principle is referred to by the higher judiciary, then there is an underlying presumption that such accounting principle is in conformity with and not in conflict with the taxation principle. The essence of the matter is that taxation principles are to be followed. If an accounting principle is in conformity with the mandate of taxing principle and reference is made to such accounting principle while deciding the issue, it does not mean that the accounting principle has been followed. It simply means that the taxation principle has been followed and the accounting principle, which is in line with such taxation principle, has been simply taken note of. If however, an accounting principle runs counter to the taxation principle, then there is no prize for guessing that it is only the taxation principle which shall prevail. 11.2.8 The plea now raised before us by the ld. AR, relying on the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra), was also taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkalis Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd (supra). Dealing with the same, the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith a year during which the options were vesting with the employees and the company claimed discount during the vesting period. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PVP Ventures Ltd. (supra) has upheld the view taken by the Chennai Bench in the case of S.S.I. Ltd. (supra). The granting of the binding force to the SEBI Guidelines by the Hon'ble Madras High Court should be viewed in the context of the issue before it, which was about the deductibility of discount during one of the vesting years. In the earlier part of this order, we have held that the deductibility of discount during the vesting period, as prescribed under the SEBI Guidelines, matches with the treatment under the mercantile system of accounting. To that extent, we also hold that the SEBI guidelines are applicable in the matter of deduction of discount. Neither there was any issue before the Hon'ble Madras High Court nor it dealt with a situation in which the market price of the shares at the time of exercise of option is more or less than the market price at the time of grant of option. It is a situation which has also not been dealt with by the Guidelines. Accordingly, the aforenoted taxation pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above findings in the above order, grounds no. 1 to 2.2 of the appeal are allowed. 5. In ground No. 3 to 3.1, the assessee has challenged disallowance of payment under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 5.1 The facts in respect of issue in dispute are that during the year the assessee incurred expenses on rent, repairs and maintenance in respect of two parties and tax was deducted at source, having details as under: Name of Company Nature of Transaction Payment made to Group Company Tax Deducted at Source Religare Realty Limited ('RRL') Rental expenses Rs.1,98,44,307/- Rs.51,08,760 Religare Securities Limited ('RSL') Rental expenses Rs.1,17,61,038/- Rs.26,92,430/- Rent recorded under the head Repair and Maintenance charges Rs.11,36,028/- Rs.2,29,550/- Total Rs.3,27,41,533/- Rs.80,30,740/- 5.2 Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file copy of agreement entered into with the above parties. According to the Assessing Officer, above parties falls under the definition of persons given in section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and it was not possible to ascertain whether such expenditure was excessive/unreasonable having regard to the fair mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the applicability of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. The grounds no. 3 to 3.1 (wrongly mentioned as 2.3 in the grounds of appeal) are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. As far as ground no. 4 is concerned, the assessee has raised the issue relating to not taking on record Memorandum of Understanding holding that the same being in the nature of additional evidence in terms of Rule-46A of the Income Tax Rules is concerned, we find that this Memorandum of Understanding goes to the root of the matter hence, the Assessing Officer is directed to also consider this Memorandum of Understanding while adjudicating the issue no. 3. This ground of appeal is allowed. 7. In ground no. 5, the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in allowing depreciation on UPS @ 15% as against depreciation claimed by the assessee @ 60%. 7.1 As regards to this issue, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the following decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court: * CIT Vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
