ESOP employee compensation discounts treated as real business expense, allowed as revenue deduction u/s37(1)

The dominant issue was whether employee stock option (ESOP) discount/expenditure constitutes an allowable revenue deduction under s.37(1) of the Income-tax Act or is merely notional/contingent. The Tribunal held that ESOP cost forms part of employee compensation/perquisites and is incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes; applying its earlier precedent, it is not a contingent or notional claim but an ascertained business expenditure. Consequently, the ESOP expenditure was allowed as a deduction under s.37(1), and the taxpayer's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustment
2. Disallowance of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) Expenses

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustment:
The assessee, a company providing back office services, filed a return of income for AY 2015-16. The case was selected for scrutiny due to international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed a TP adjustment of Rs. 36,79,45,675, which was later reduced to Rs. 21,29,68,370 by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee withdrew the grounds related to TP adjustment following the acceptance of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) Resolution by the Competent Authority. Consequently, grounds No.1 to 20 regarding TP adjustment were dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Disallowance of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) Expenses:
The assessee contested the disallowance of ESOP expenses amounting to Rs. 1,41,47,125. The DRP and the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the ESOP expenses, considering them fictitious costs and notional losses. They argued that the loss on discounted shares was not crystallized and was contingent in nature. The assessee argued that ESOP expenses are part of employee compensation and should be allowed as deductions under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
- Facts:
The assessee participated in the Northern Trust Corporation 2012 Stock Plan, where stock options on equity shares of the ultimate holding company (NT Corporation) were granted to employees. The ESOP expenses represented the discount offered to employees on shares, which were reimbursed by the assessee to NT Corporation and claimed as 'Employee Benefit Expense.'

- AO's Grounds for Disallowance:
- The loss on discounted shares was notional and contingent.
- The expenditure was not allowable under section 37 of the Act.
- The judicial precedents relied on by the assessee were under appeal.
- The AO relied on the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Infosys Limited, stating no perquisite arises until shares are actually issued to employees.
- The expenses were considered a 'colourable device' to shift profits outside India.

- DRP's Grounds for Upholding Disallowance:
- The perquisite was charged to employees on amortization of expenses, not on the exercise of options.
- The issue of shares was not crystallized until the exercise of options.
- The ESOP expense was considered a capital expenditure.
- The expense was a fictitious cost and a notional loss to the holding company.
- The expense was seen as a device to shift profits from India.

- Assessee's Arguments:
- ESOP expenses are part of employee compensation and should be allowed as deductions.
- ESOP expenses are not notional or contingent and qualify as 'expenditure' under section 37 of the Act.
- The liability for ESOP expenses is ascertained and not contingent.
- The expenses are wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

- Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal referred to the coordinate bench's decision in the case of Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd. v. DCIT, where it was held that ESOP expenses are revenue expenditures and should be allowed as deductions. The Tribunal noted that the liability for ESOP expenses had accrued during the previous year and was an employee cost incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure towards ESOP is eligible for deduction under section 37 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal directed that the expenditure towards ESOP be allowed as a deduction. The judgment emphasized that ESOP expenses are part of employee compensation and should be treated as revenue expenditures for tax purposes.

---