ITAT decision favors Assessee on non-compete fee, ESOP, Section 80HHE, depreciation. Partial win for Revenue on transfer pricing.

The ITAT upheld most of the CIT(A)'s decisions, granting relief to the Assessee on various issues including non-compete fee amortization, ESOP expenses, Section 80HHE deduction, and depreciation claims. The ITAT partially allowed the Revenue's appeal on the transfer pricing adjustment, reducing the adjustment amount.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Amortisation of Non-compete Fee
2. ESOP Expenses
3. Deduction under Section 80HHE
4. Depreciation on Software Expenses
5. Depreciation Claim for Section 10A Exemption
6. Transfer Pricing Adjustment

Summary:

1. Amortisation of Non-compete Fee:
The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the non-compete fee, arguing it should be amortised over the period of benefit. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, relying on the Assessee's own case and the Supreme Court's decision in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. The ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT, which allows full deduction of such fees in the year incurred.

2. ESOP Expenses:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the ESOP expenses, citing no options were exercised during the year. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, considering it an ascertained liability. The ITAT upheld this decision, citing precedents from various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court in PCIT vs New Delhi Television Ltd, affirming ESOP expenses as allowable deductions.

3. Deduction under Section 80HHE:
The Assessing Officer denied the deduction under Section 80HHE due to nil business income after setting off brought forward losses. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, relying on the Assessee's own case and other precedents. The ITAT upheld this, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs Reliance Energy Ltd, which allows deductions from gross total income, not just business income.

4. Depreciation on Software Expenses:
The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to grant depreciation on software expenses treated as capital in nature. The ITAT remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the exemption under Section 10A, considering the depreciation pertaining to STPI units and allowing the balance as a deduction.

5. Depreciation Claim for Section 10A Exemption:
The Assessing Officer treated the difference between book and tax depreciation as not eligible for Section 10A exemption. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating the adjustment would not result in any further addition to total income. The ITAT upheld this decision, agreeing that the adjusted profit is also eligible for exemption under Section 10A.

6. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The TPO made an adjustment based on the salary costs of seconded employees, applying a placement agency rate. The CIT(A) reduced this adjustment, considering Indian salaries and excluding certain employees. The ITAT partially upheld the adjustment, revising it to Rs.4,00,000, acknowledging the need for compensation but rejecting the benchmarking with third-party placement agencies.

Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld most of the CIT(A)'s decisions, providing relief to the Assessee on multiple grounds while partially allowing the Revenue's appeal on the transfer pricing adjustment. The appeal was partly allowed.

---