Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Dy. CIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi. vs. M/s. Info Edge India Ltd., GF-12A, 94, Meghdoot Building, New Delhi.
January, 03rd 2019
                  In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal,
                        Delhi Bench `E', New Delhi

             Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And
                      Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member

                         ITA No. 3837/Del/2015
                        Assessment Year: 2011-12

          Dy. CIT, Circle 12(1),     vs.    M/s. Info Edge India Ltd.,
          New Delhi.                       GF-12A, 94, Meghdoot
                                           Building, New Delhi.
          (Appellant)                      (Respondent)

             Appellant by          Sh. Sridhar Dora, Sr. DR
             Respondent by         Sh. Deepesh Jain, CA
                                   Sh. Meenal Goyal, CA

               Date of Hearing                      27.11.2018
               Date of Pronouncement                02.01.2019


                                     ORDER
Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:
     This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated
31.03.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12 on the
following grounds :
     "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)
     has erred in deleting the addition made by A.O. on account of disallowance
     of Employee stock option scheme Compensation of Rs.1,76,67,000/-.

     2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has
     erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of disallowance
     u/s. 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D of Rs.12,86,407/-.
                                                         ITA No. 3837/Del/2015    2


2.    The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income
on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.120,91,67,280/-. The case was
selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee.
Subsequently,    the   return    was       revised   declaring    the   income    of
Rs.120,65,90,546/-. In the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer
observed that the assessee has charged in the profit and loss account, an
amount    of    Rs.1,76,67,000/-      as   Employees      Stock   Option    Scheme
Compensation. In this regard, the assessee submitted that the Employees
Stock Option Scheme Compensation is an allowable expenditure and he relied
on the judgment of CIT vs. Biocon Ltd. vs. ITAT, 35 taxmann.com 335
(Bangalore Tribunal) (SB). The Assessing Officer did not accept the
submissions of the assessee and held that Employees Stock Option (ESOP)
would not be treated as a Revenue expenditure, but it is a capital expenditure
and there is no any flow of funds, therefore, no actual expenditure has been
incurred by the company either in the form of capital expenditure or Revenue
expenditure.    Accordingly,    the    Assessing     Officer   added    a   sum       of
Rs.1,76,67,000/- to the total income of the assessee.
3.    The Assessing Officer further noticed that on perusal of balance sheet
that the assessee has made investment in shares/mutual funds to the tune of
Rs.296,87,04,000/- has on 31.03.2011. He also noticed from the computation
of income that the assessee has made suo moto disallowed Rs.68,11,786/- u/s.
14A and in the tax audit report, the tax auditor has computed the
disallowance u/s. 14A at Rs.93,70,518/-. In this regard, the assessee
submitted computation of disallowance u/s. 14A which was examined by the
AO and noted that the assessee has not taken value of all eligible investment,
                                                     ITA No. 3837/Del/2015   3


income from which will yield income not forming the part of total income for
taxation. The assessee also submitted the details as required by the Assessing
Officer and the AO after relying the decision of ITAT Special Bench, New Delhi
in the case of M/s. Cheminvest Ltd., ITA No. 87/Del/2008 and CBDT Circular
No. 05/2014 dated 11.02.2014. He recomputed the disallowance as per Rule
8D of the IT Rules and total resultant disallowance came to Rs.80,98,193/-.
Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D
of Rs.12,86,407/- (80,98,193 ­ 68,11,786). Feeling aggrieved, the assessee
appealed before the ld. CIT(A) who accepted the appeal of the assessee and
directed the Assessing Officer for recomputation as per findings of the ld.
CIT(A). Aggrieved from the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal
before the Tribunal.
4.    The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and submitted that the ld.
CIT(A) has wrongly treated as Revenue expenditure the Employees Stock
Option which has been debited into the profit and loss account of assessee.
The Revenue has not accepted the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT Special Bench in
the case of CIT vs. Biocon Ltd. and has filed appeal before the High Court. The
Assessing Officer has examined the issue in detail in the assessment order and
therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer should be restored. It was next
submitted in respect of ground No. 2 that the observation of the Assessing
Officer is correct that the assessee has not considered all those investments on
which exempt income has been received while disallowing the amount u/s.
14A read with Rule 8D. The case laws relied by the ld. CIT(A) are not
applicable to the present facts of the case.
                                                                ITA No. 3837/Del/2015       4







5.    On the other hand, the ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and
reiterated the submissions made before him.
6.    After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire materials
available on record, we observe in respect of ground No. 1 that the ld. CIT(A)
has done a good reasoned order which does not call for any interference. The
findings reached by the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced below for ready reference :


      "6.2. The ground No. 2 is covered by my own order for AY 2008-09, 2009-10 &
      2010-11, in which following the decision of Ld. CIT(A)-XXX in favour of the appellant
      for A.Y. 2007-08, which was on the basis of the decision of the Madras High Court in
      the case of PVP Ventures Ltd.(supra), and of the Chennai ITAT in the case of SSI Ltd.
      Vs. DCIT [85 TTJ 1049], ESOP expenses were held as revenue in nature.

      6.3. I find that the Ld. AO has heavily relied upon the decision in the case of M/s
      VIP Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT & Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs Addl.CIT 124 TTJ (Del) 771
      and held that since the ESOP expenses were in the nature of loss to the capital, the
      same were capital loss and not revenue expenditure. The Ld. AO has also held that
      the SEBI Guidelines is not a prerogative for determining the allowability under the
      Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the AO was of the view that as the Central Govt., has
      not notified Accounting Standards in the matter of ESOP, such expenses cannot be
      allowed on the amortization basis. The Ld. AO has disregarded the decision of ITAT
      Spl. Bench, Bangalore in the case of M/s Biocon Ltd. (supra) on the ground that the
      same was challenged before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court.

      6.3.2 The Ld. AO has held such expenses as capital in nature and not as actual
      expenditure and relying upon the decision in the case of Addl. CIT Vs Ranbaxy
      Laboratories Ltd. reported in 124 TTJ 771 (Del) had disallowed these expenses. The
      Hon'ble ITAT (Spl. Bench), Bangalore, subsequently, in the case of Biocon Ltd.
      {2013} 35 taxmann.com 335 (Bang)(SB) had comprehensively over viewed the legal
      position in the light of accounting and taxation principles and have disagreed with
      the views expressed by the Division Bench of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra).

      6.3.3 The Hon'ble Special Bench, Bangalore(SB) in its decision made the following
      observations which address the key reservations of the Ld. A.O.:

      "when a company undertakes to issue shares to its employees at a discounted premium
      on a future date, the primary object of this exercise is not to raise share capital but to
      earn profit by securing the consistent and concentrated efforts of its dedicated
                                                          ITA No. 3837/Del/2015        5


employees during the vesting period. Such discount is construed, both by the employees
and company, as nothing but a part of package of remuneration".... Para 9.2.6

"There is no difference in two situations viz., one, when the company issues shares to
public at market price and a part of the premium is given to the employees in lieu of
their services and two, when the shares are directly issued to employees at a reduced
rate. In both the situations, the employees stand compensated for their effort.".... Para
9.2.6

"When section 43(2) of the Act is read in conjunction with section 37(1), the meaning
of the term 'expenditure' turns out to be the same as is there in the afore quoted part
of the definition under section 2(h) of the Expenditure Act, 1957, viz., not only 'paying
out' but also 'incurring'. Coming back to our context, it is seen that by undertaking to
issue shares at discounted premium, the company does not pay anything to its
employees but incurs obligation of issuing shares at a discounted price on a future
date in lieu of their services, which is nothing but an expenditure u/s 37(1) of the
Act".... Para 9.2.7

"discount in relation to options vesting during the year cannot be held as a contingent
liability."... Para 9.3.6

"The incurring of liability towards the discounted premium, being compensation to
employee, is directly linked with the span of service put in by the employee. It,
therefore, transpires that a company under the mercantile system can lawfully claim
deduction for total discounted premium representing the employees cost over the
vesting period at the rate at which there is vesting of options in the employees.".... Para
10.4

"Reverting to the questions of 'when' and 'how much' of deduction for discount on
options is to be granted, we hold that the liability to pay the discounted premium is
incurred during the vesting period and the amount of such deduction is to be found out
as per the terms of the ESOP scheme by considering the period and percentage of
vesting during such period."... Para 10.8".

6.3.4 The Hon'ble Spl. Bench, ITAT Bangalore, on comprehensive review of the
legal position in the matter, after taking into account the relevant accounting
principles did not follow the decision of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd. (supra) and of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of VIP Industries
Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Special Bench also considered the decision of Hon'ble
Madras High Court in the case of PVP Ventures (supra), in which the views taken by
the Chennai Bench in the case of SSI (supra) was upheld, where discount on ESOP
was held as allowable deduction, by holding as under:
                                                              ITA No. 3837/Del/2015      6


      "We, therefore, sum up the position that the discount under ESOP is in the nature of
      employees cost and is hence deductible during the vesting period w.r.t. the market
      price of shares at the time of grant of options to the employees. The amount of
      discount claimed as deduction during the vesting period is required to be reversed in
      relation to the unvesting/lapsing options at the appropriate time. However, an
      adjustment to the income is called for at the time of exercise of option by the amount
      of difference in the amount of discount calculated with reference the market price at
      the time of grant of option and the market price at the time of exercise of option. No
      accounting principle can be determinative in the matter of computation of total
      income under the Act. The question before the Special Bench is thus answered in
      affirmative by holding that discount on issue of Employee Stock Options is allowable as
      deduction in computing the income under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business or
      Profession'."

      6.3.5 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was also asked to
      furnish the details of working of the Scheme of ESOP expenditure. In response, the
      appellant submitted that the correct computation of allowance for ESOP comes at Rs
      12.32 Crores in the light of the computation scheme approved by the Hon'ble ITAT
      (SB) in the case of Biocon Ltd. (supra): It was submitted that as on the date of filing
      of the return of income the benefit of the ruling by the Hon'ble Special bench, ITAT
      in the above case was not available, the appellant made a much lower claim of Rs
      1.76 Crs. based on its own interpretation. The Ld Counsel submitted that in view of
      the fact that the said Biocon decision is now available the appellant may be allowed
      the deduction in respect of ESOP expenses based on the said decision, in which it
      was held that the amount of ESOP expenditure calculated by taking the difference
      between the market price of the shares of the company and the offer price to the
      employee is to be proportionately allocated over the vesting period of such option,
      which in the appellant's computation comes at Rs 12.32 Crs.






      6.3.6 On careful consideration of the above, and respectfully following the Hon'ble
      Madras High Court in the case of PVP Ventures (supra) and of the Special Bench,
      Bangalore(S.B.) in the case of M/s Biocon Ltd. (supra), I allow the claim of the
      appellant for treating the ESOP expenses as revenue in the nature. Since there is no
      contrary High Court decision, the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the matter, is
      a binding precedent. The AO is directed to verify the quantum of the deduction
      based on guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Spl. Bench in the case of M/s Biocon
      Ltd. (supra) on verification of the details of the eligible employees, who had left the
      job before exercising the option and reduce such amount for ascertaining the
      correct amount of liability for the current year and allow the deduction accordingly".


7.    From the above order of ld. CIT(A), it is clear that the ld.CIT(A) has
relied on various decisions and has per the decisions relied by the ld. CIT(A),
                                                      ITA No. 3837/Del/2015   7


the ESOP has been treated as Revenue expenditure. The Revenue did not
bring any contrary decision against the Special Bench decision in case of
Biocon Ltd. (supra). It is not the case of Revenue that the decision of Special
Bench of ITAT has been either set aside or reversed by Hon'ble Karnataka
High Court. Keeping all these facts in view, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has
rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee with certain directions to
the AO. For want of any contrary material on record, we do not find any
infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this count. Accordingly, ground No. 1
raised by the Revenue deserves to fail.
8.    As far as the disallowance u/s. 14A is concerned, we find that the ld.
CIT(A) while deciding this issue has directed the Assessing Officer to
recomputed the disallowance u/s. 14A, after considering the primary object of
investment made in the subsidiary companies. For this, the ld. CIT(A) has
recorded the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Oriental
Structural Engineering Pvt. Ltd., 216 Taxman 92 & the decision of Mumbai
Bench of Tribunal in Garware Wall Ropes vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5408/Mum/2012.
We, however, find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp
Investment Ltd. v. CIT(2018) 91 taxman.com 154 (SC) has categorically held
that the dominant object for which the investment into the shares is made by
the assessee may not be relevant. It is also held that the investment made in
order to gain control of the investee company would not be relevant factor in
determining the issue u/s. 14A of the IT Act. We, however, observe from the
order of the Assessing Officer that the assessee in his computation of
disallowance u/s. 14A filed before the Assessing Officer has not even included
such investments, from which he has earned the exempted income. We,
                                                        ITA No. 3837/Del/2015          8


therefore, send the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to
recomputed the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D, after considering
the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment (supra).
The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details of investments as
required by the assessing officer for correct computation of disallowance u/s.
14A. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
9.      In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical
purposes.
        Order pronounced in the open court on 02.01.2019.
              Sd/-                                           Sd/-

        (Amit Shukla)                                 (L.P. Sahu)
        Judicial member                            Accountant Member

Dated: 02.01.2019
*aks*
Copy of order forwarded to:
(1)     The appellant                 (2)   The respondent
(3)     Commissioner                  (4)   CIT(A)
(5)     Departmental Representative   (6)   Guard File
                                                                                  By order

                                                                        Assistant Registrar
                                                             Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
                                                                  Delhi Benches, New Delhi

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting