Tribunal overturns disallowance of ESOP cost, emphasizes detailed justifications in orders

Nuvama Wealth and Investment Limited, (Formerly known as Edelweiss Broking Limited) Mumbai Versus ACIT, Circle-17 (1), Hyderabad

Nuvama Wealth and Investment Limited, (Formerly known as Edelweiss Broking Limited) Mumbai Versus ACIT, Circle-17 (1), Hyderabad - TMI Issues involved:
The judgment involves the disallowance of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) cost claimed by the assessee as expenditure and the allowance of TDS credit for a lesser amount than was available for the assessment year 2017-18.

Summary:

ESOP Cost Disallowance:
During the scrutiny of the return of income, the Assessing Officer disallowed the ESOP cost claimed by the assessee as expenditure and allowed a lesser TDS credit. The assessee contended that the ESOP scheme allowed deduction of the difference between market price and grant price of shares under section 37(1) of the Act. Citing case law, the assessee argued that incurring an expenditure through issuing shares at a price lower than Fair Market Value qualifies as an 'expenditure' under the Act. Additionally, the assessee referred to section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, stating that the discount enjoyed by employees under ESOP scheme constitutes a revenue expenditure for the business. The CIT(A) disallowed 30% of the ESOP cost under section 40(a)(ia) due to the assessee's failure to furnish employee details, and did not address the shortfall in TDS credit.

Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order lacking in addressing the contentions raised by the assessee and not providing reasons for disallowing the ESOP cost. It noted the absence of reasoning for invoking section 17(2)(vi)(c) against the assessee's arguments. Emphasizing the importance of reasons in judicial orders, the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after affording both parties an opportunity. The Tribunal deemed it necessary for the CIT(A) to provide detailed reasons for the conclusions reached.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive and reasoned decision, highlighting the need for proper justification in tax matters.