Tribunal rulings on ESOP, patents, and deductions; key decisions on income, expenses, and depreciation

The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the direction to allow ESOP expenditure, disallowed the reduction of operating profits by income from a patent infringement settlement, partially allowed the weighted deduction claim for registering patents outside India, directed the allowance of deductions not considered under S.35(2AB), upheld the pending claim for deduction under S.10B, accepted the allocation of corporate overhead expenses affecting S.10B deduction, and allowed depreciation on non-compete fees paid to Sudhir Vaid.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Deletion of addition on account of ESOP expenditure.
2. Reduction of operating profits by income from settlement of patent infringement suit.
3. Claim for weighted deduction under S.35(2AB) for registering patents outside India.
4. Deduction under S.35(1)(i) & (iv) for expenditure not considered under S.35(2AB).
5. Deduction under S.10B for Export Oriented Undertaking at Jeedimetla.
6. Apportionment of common corporate overhead expense affecting deduction under S.10B.
7. Depreciation on non-compete fees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of ESOP Expenditure:
The Revenue's appeal focused on the deletion of the addition of Rs. 35,61,793 related to ESOP expenditure. Both parties agreed that the issue was previously considered by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09, where it was directed to be examined afresh in light of the Special Bench decision in Biocon Ltd. The DRP's direction to allow the ESOP expenditure was found justified, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

2. Reduction of Operating Profits by Income from Settlement of Patent Infringement Suit:
The assessee's appeal contested the reduction of operating profits by Rs. 13.45 crores, being income from a patent infringement settlement. The Tribunal had previously ruled against the assessee on this issue for AY 2008-09. The income from the settlement was deemed not part of operating revenues but as 'other income,' and thus not included in operating profits for transfer pricing purposes. This ground was dismissed.

3. Claim for Weighted Deduction under S.35(2AB) for Registering Patents Outside India:
The assessee claimed weighted deduction for Rs. 1,06,10,707 spent on registering patents outside India. The DRP certified Rs. 73.67 lakhs as eligible. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim for Rs. 73.67 lakhs, allowing the ground partly for statistical purposes.

4. Deduction under S.35(1)(i) & (iv) for Expenditure Not Considered under S.35(2AB):
The assessee sought 100% deduction for Rs. 2,53,36,687 not considered for weighted deduction under S.35(2AB). The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee for AY 2008-09. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction after examining the relevant expenditure, allowing this ground for statistical purposes.

5. Deduction under S.10B for Export Oriented Undertaking at Jeedimetla:
The assessee's claim for deduction under S.10B for the Jeedimetla unit was pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The DRP had directed the Assessing Officer to follow the High Court's judgment once received. The Tribunal upheld this direction, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

6. Apportionment of Common Corporate Overhead Expense Affecting Deduction under S.10B:
The dispute involved the allocation of Rs. 85,67,995 in corporate overhead expenses, reducing the benefit under S.10B. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee's allocation method for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's method and directed the Assessing Officer to accept it, allowing this ground.

7. Depreciation on Non-Compete Fees:
- Depreciation on Non-Compete Fee Paid to Medispan Ltd.: The Tribunal had previously disallowed depreciation on non-compete fees for AY 2008-09, ruling it was not an intangible asset under S.32(1). This part of the ground was rejected.
- Depreciation on Non-Compete Fee Paid to Sudhir Vaid: The Tribunal had previously allowed depreciation for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation claim of Rs. 6,56,250, allowing this part of the ground.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal provided detailed directions for re-examination and upheld previous decisions where applicable.

---