Tribunal allows business expenditure for ESOP payments, dismisses disallowance under Section 14A

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of expenditure incurred for the Employees Stock Option Scheme (ESOP) payments to the holding company. The Tribunal held that the expenditure qualified as business expenditure under Section 37(1) as it was for retaining and rewarding employees, not resulting in any capital asset for the assessee. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the expenditure quantification and allow the claim for shares actually allotted to employees. The revenue's appeal on disallowance under Section 14A was dismissed due to low tax effect.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure incurred in respect of the Employees Stock Option Scheme (ESOP) by way of payments made to the holding company.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of ESOP Expenditure:

Background and Assessee’s Arguments:
The assessee, a corporate entity engaged in stock broking and financial services, claimed an expenditure of Rs. 1,32,60,846/- under 'Employee Benefit Expenses' for payments made to its holding company for the ESOP scheme. The assessee argued that this expenditure was incurred to retain employees and reward their contributions, qualifying it as a business expenditure. The assessee contended that this expenditure did not result in any capital increase and should be treated as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Assessing Officer’s (AO) Disallowance:
The AO disallowed the expenditure on several grounds:
- ESOP discounts relate to the issuance of shares and are not connected to business profits or gains.
- The company does not suffer a pecuniary detriment from ESOP discounts, and such discounts are not trade liabilities.
- Share premiums are capital receipts, and any forgone premium cannot be claimed as revenue expenditure.
- The expenditure accrues only when the options are exercised, not when they are granted.
- There is no specific provision under Sections 30 to 36 of the Income Tax Act for such deductions, making Section 37 applicable, which requires the expenditure to be revenue in nature.

CIT(A)’s Rejection:
The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s disallowance, reasoning that:
- The differential amount between the issue price and market price of shares paid to the holding company does not constitute a pecuniary loss or trade liability for the assessee.
- The vesting period of ESOP was to start from the financial year 2012-13, not 2011-12, making the claimed expenditure contingent and not actual.
- The ESOP scheme was akin to Sweat Equity Shares, which are capital in nature and not allowable as revenue expenditure.

Tribunal’s Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities, emphasizing that:
- The expenditure was for retaining and rewarding employees, thus qualifying as business expenditure under Section 37(1).
- The shares were issued by the holding company, and the assessee funded the differential amount, which should be treated as employee cost.
- The nature of receipts in the hands of the holding company is irrelevant in determining the nature of payment in the hands of the assessee.
- The expenditure did not result in any capital asset for the assessee and was a legitimate business expenditure.

Precedent Cases Referenced:
The Tribunal referred to several cases, including the Special Bench decision in Biocon Limited Vs. DCIT, which held that ESOP expenditure is revenue in nature. The Tribunal also cited the decision in Novo Nordisk India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, where similar ESOP-related expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal, directing the AO to verify the quantification of the expenditure and allow the claim to the extent of shares actually allotted to the employees. The revenue’s appeal concerning disallowance under Section 14A was dismissed due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT’s circular.

Order:
The assessee’s appeal (ITA No. 6891/Mum/2016) was allowed, and the revenue’s appeal (ITA No. 6479/Mum/2016) was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 03rd October, 2018.

---