Decision upholds disallowance of occupancy/depreciation recharge under sections 32 and 37; RSU/ESOP deleted; CCDs treated as debt

ITAT, Mumbai upheld disallowance of occupancy/depreciation recharge under sections 32/37, finding the assessee neither owned nor incurred the leasehold asset cost. The tribunal deleted the addition relating to RSU/ESOP expenditure. An intimation discrepancy under section 143(1) was directed to be decided by the AO via the pending section 154 rectification. CCDs were held to be debt until conversion; interest is allowable but transfer-pricing benchmarking of the interest was restored to the TPO/AO for de novo ALP determination. TDS credit and applicability of interest under sections 234A/234B were remitted to the jurisdictional AO for verification and action.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether reimbursement of depreciation charged by a group entity (for leasehold improvements owned by that entity) can be claimed as a deduction under section 37(1) when the assessee is not the owner of the asset and did not incur the capital expenditure.

2. Whether expenditure recorded as cost of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs)/ESOPs is revenue deductible or is capital/notional (non-expended) in nature for allowance under section 37(1).

3. Whether additions made by CPC in intimation under section 143(1) (difference between return and audit report) that did not form part of scrutiny draft assessment can be adjudicated in the present appeal.

4. Whether interest paid on Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs) to associated enterprises is to be bifurcated into debt and equity components for transfer pricing; whether CUP is an appropriate method; and whether the ALP of interest on the equity component can be treated as nil under Rule 10AB and section 92C/92CA.

5. Whether, alternatively, interest paid on CCDs is disallowable under section 36(1)(iii) and/or section 37 of the Act.

6. Whether carried-forward interest restrictions under section 94B(4) were correctly computed in light of TP adjustment(s) on CCD interest.

7. Whether short grant of TDS credit was correctly denied in assessment.

8. Whether interest under sections 234A and 234B was correctly levied.

9. Whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A for under-reporting is premature.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Reimbursement of depreciation (occupancy expense) under section 37(1)

Legal framework: Section 32 provides statutory allowance for depreciation and requires ownership (subject to Explanation 1 for leasehold improvements where the taxpayer incurs the expenditure). Section 37(1) permits business expenses not falling under other specific heads. Judicial authorities have held depreciation to be a statutory allowance, not an ordinary trading expenditure.

Precedent treatment: Reliance on authority that depreciation is a statutory allowance (Elecon Engineering) and that depreciation is not an expenditure or trading liability (Delhi High Court in Central Warehousing Corporation following Nectar Beverages).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found no dispute on facts that the leasehold improvements were capitalised and owned by the group entity which recharged the assessee. As assessee neither owned the assets nor incurred the capital expenditure, Explanation 1 to section 32 does not apply. Depreciation, being a statutory allowance and not a reimbursable trading expense, cannot be transformed into an allowable under section 37 by mere reclassification in a cost allocation agreement. The group entity's tax treatment does not control allowability in assessee's hands.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - reimbursement of depreciation for assets not owned/expended by assessee is not allowable under section 37 and cannot be claimed as depreciation under section 32 unless conditions of section 32/Explanation 1 are satisfied. Obiter - none material.

Conclusion: Disallowance of Rs.5,03,462 upheld; ground dismissed.

Issue 2 - Allowability of RSU/ESOP expenditure

Legal framework: Section 37(1) allows business expenditure; tax treatment depends on whether ESOP cost is actual expenditure or a notional/capital transaction; earlier tribunal decisions and Special Bench precedents addressed discount on issue of ESOPs.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed earlier coordinate-bench decisions in the same group (including a Special Bench decision in Biocon and the assessee's sister concern) which allowed ESOP/RSU costs as deductible.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found persuasive precedent in co-ordinate bench decisions accepting the ESOP/RSU cost as deductible expenditure (relying on factual similarity and absence of contrary material from Revenue). The DRP's reliance on pending higher court proceedings did not outweigh binding coordinate-bench precedent for the Tribunal's approach.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - on facts and in light of binding/coordinate-bench authority, RSU/ESOP cost is allowable as business expenditure; Obiter - reference to pending SLP and lack of finality in higher courts noted but not determinative here.

Conclusion: Addition disallowing Rs.2,46,38,547 deleted; ground allowed.

Issue 3 - Addition via intimation under section 143(1)

Legal framework: Section 143(1) processing is distinct and additions arising therefrom which were not part of scrutiny proceedings may be rectified under section 154.

Precedent treatment: DRP refused to adjudicate because the matter did not emanate from draft scrutiny order and directed assessee to pursue rectification under section 154.

Interpretation and reasoning: Tribunal declined to decide merits since the addition did not originate from the orders under appeal and a rectification application is pending; directed AO to decide rectification promptly.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - tribunal will not decide issues outside the scope of the appealed draft order; such matters to be addressed via appropriate rectification remedy.

Conclusion: Ground allowed for statistical purposes; matter remitted to AO for rectification decision.

Issue 4 - TP characterization of CCDs; method selection; bifurcation into debt/equity; ALP of equity component

Legal framework: Transfer pricing provisions (sections 92-92F, 92C, 92CA and Rule 10AB) require determination of arm's length price using the most appropriate method; Rule 10AB defines "Other Method" as taking into account prices in same/similar uncontrolled transactions.

Precedent treatment: Tribunal relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence that tax treatment depends on legal substance not merely accounting presentation; but also placed weight on High Court decisions holding that CCDs remain debt until conversion (Secure Meters, HDFC Bank, Havells). The Tribunal distinguished IFCI v. Sutanu Sinha (Supreme Court) on factual matrix where CCDs were treated as equity ab initio by contract.

Interpretation and reasoning: Tribunal concluded that (a) TPO/DRP erred in relying upon the assessee's Ind AS bifurcation to treat CCDs as having an equity component for tax/TP purposes; financial statement presentation under Ind AS-32 cannot override legal form and commercial reality; (b) where CCDs are debt until conversion, interest is prima facie a deductible debt cost; (c) the TPO improperly adopted "Other Method" without searching for similar uncontrolled transactions between non-associated enterprises as required by Rule 10AB; (d) benchmarking should be reconsidered de novo by TPO/AO with opportunity to assessee to justify CUP or other appropriate method and to present comparables; (e) issues regarding section 94B consequences to be kept open pending fresh TP determination.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - accounting bifurcation per Ind AS cannot by itself transform legal nature of CCDs for TP/tax; where facts show debenture character until conversion, interest should be benchmarked as debt and TP determination must follow Rule 10AB's requirement to consider similar uncontrolled transactions; matters remitted for fresh TP exercise. Obiter - discussion of IFCI decision distinguished on facts.

Conclusion: TPO/DRP adjustments treating equity component interest as nil and directing disallowance were set aside; matter restored to TPO/AO for de novo benchmarking; disallowance under section 36/37 deleted pending fresh TP exercise; grounds allowed (some for statistical purposes) and section 94B contentions kept open.

Issue 5 - Alternate disallowance under section 36(1)(iii)/section 37

Legal framework: Section 36/37 allow disallowance where payments do not satisfy statutory conditions for deduction or where not incurred wholly for business; alternative disallowance may be considered if TP adjustment is not sustained.

Precedent treatment: Tribunal followed authorities holding CCDs to be debt until conversion and thus interest is generally allowable; distinguished Supreme Court decision where CCDs were treated as equity by contractual/contractual regime.

Interpretation and reasoning: In view of restoring TP issue and recognising that CCDs are debt until conversion on facts here, the Tribunal found no merit in alternative blanket disallowance under section 36/37; directed that interest disallowance be deleted pending re-benchmarking.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where factual/legal character supports debt treatment and TP process must be redone, AO/DRP cannot sustain alternate disallowance under section 36/37 without fresh findings; Obiter - remarks on factual distinction from IFCI.

Conclusion: Disallowance of entire interest (Rs.133,71,83,173) under section 36/37 deleted; grounds allowed (some for statistical purposes) and matter remitted for TP redetermination.

Issue 6 - Carried-forward interest and section 94B(4) computation

Legal framework: Section 94B limits interest deduction in certain scenarios and prescribes carry forward rules in sub-section (4) where excess is determined.

Precedent treatment: Tribunal left section 94B contentions open pending fresh TP determination.

Interpretation and reasoning: Because ALP and quantum of adjustment are to be re-determined de novo, Tribunal did not adjudicate section 94B computation and allowed assessee to present contentions after fresh benchmarking.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - issues dependent on TP outcome must await fresh TP determination.

Conclusion: Ground allowed for statistical purposes; section 94B issues left open on remand.

Issue 7 - TDS credit short grant

Legal framework: Tax credit must be granted after verification by AO as per law and records.

Interpretation and reasoning: Tribunal restored issue to AO to verify and grant TDS credit in accordance with law after necessary verification.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - tribunal directs AO to verify and grant legitimate TDS credit; procedural remedial direction.

Conclusion: Ground remitted for verification and action by AO; allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 8 - Levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B

Legal framework: Section 234A levies interest for delay in filing return; section 234B relates to default in payment of advance tax and is consequential.

Interpretation and reasoning: Tribunal directed AO to verify timeliness of return filing and levy interest under section 234A only if delay is established; section 234B being consequential requires no separate adjudication now.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - interest under 234A must be based on verified facts of delay; 234B considered consequential.

Conclusion: Grounds allowed for statistical purposes and remitted to AO for verification/action.

Issue 9 - Penalty under section 270A

Legal framework: Penalty for under-reporting is based on completed assessment findings and mens rea/recklessness considerations; premature proposals before finality may be dismissed.

Interpretation and reasoning: Tribunal found penalty initiation premature given unresolved substantive issues and remitted matters; dismissed ground as premature.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - proposed penalty under 270A is premature where core assessment issues remain to be finally decided.

Conclusion: Ground dismissed as premature.

---