TPO order on ESOP expenses and foreign exchange losses was not erroneous, revision under section 263 quashed

ITAT Bangalore held that TPO's order was not erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. The tribunal ruled that ESOP expenses (Rs. 4,054 million) constitute non-operating expenditure for computing operating margin, not operating expenses as claimed by CIT. Regarding foreign exchange fluctuation loss (Rs. 110 million) and loss on investments in subsidiaries (Rs. 118 million), the tribunal noted CIT himself acknowledged these were not operating expenses, making his direction for fresh TPO examination unjustified. The revision order u/s 263 was quashed, deciding in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the TPO correctly excluded certain expenses from operating costs.
2. Whether the CIT had the authority to revise the TPO's order under section 263 of the Act.
3. Whether the TPO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Exclusion of Certain Expenses from Operating Costs
The CIT noted that the TPO did not consider share-based compensation (Rs. 4,054 million), foreign exchange fluctuation loss (Rs. 110 million), and impairment of investments in subsidiaries (Rs. 118 million) as operating expenses. The CIT issued a show cause notice and concluded that the TPO's exclusion of these expenses rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the TPO had conducted extensive inquiries and had a plausible view. The Tribunal held that share-based compensation is a non-operating expense, supported by various judicial precedents. Similarly, foreign exchange fluctuation loss and impairment of investments were also non-operating expenses as per the CIT's own admission.

Issue 2: Authority of CIT under Section 263
The assessee argued that the CIT did not have the authority to revise the TPO's order under section 263 before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022. The Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue as it had already decided that the CIT wrongly invoked section 263.

Issue 3: Erroneous and Prejudicial to Revenue
The Tribunal found that the TPO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The TPO had made detailed inquiries and the view taken was plausible. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order and held that the CIT could not direct the TPO for fresh examination when it was already established that the expenses in question were non-operating.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, and the CIT's order was quashed. The Tribunal concluded that the TPO's order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the CIT wrongly invoked section 263.

---