2024 (6) TMI 1466 - AT - Income Tax

Allowability of E-SOP expenses - AO observed that E-SOP expenses claimed are capital in nature and hence they are not liable as expenses - assessee contended that expenses are in revenue nature as it is part of salary/employee cost which was incurred in relation to employees of the assessee and they are paid as incentive with a view to motivate and encourage the employees - HELD THAT - This is an allowable expenditure in view of the judgement in the case of CIT Vs. Biocon Ltd. 2020 (11) TMI 779 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT wherein held that ESOP was allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act as the primary object is not to waste capital to earn profit by securing consistent service of employees. In the present case also assessee debited towards employee stock compensation plan. This expenditure has been incurred by assessee in relation to employees of the assessee and they are paid as incentive with a view to motivate and encourage the employees. Restricted Stock Units (RSU) were issued at discounted premium to the employees under the incentive plan to compensate the employees for the continuity of their services and the company had stated that it neither raised any share capital under the incentive plan nor issued shares to its employees out of its capital and hence there is no change in the fixed capital of the assessee. In view this it is allowable expenditure. When assessee claims it as an expenditure as it is relating to the employees welfare the assessee should have deducted the TDS subject to this claim of assessee is liable u/s 37 of the Act as held in the case of Biocon Ltd. Accordingly the issue is remitted to the file of ld. AO to verify whether there was due deduction of TDS on the expenditure debited to the P L account towards ESoP in the assessment year under consideration and decide it afresh in the light of above judgement of jurisdictional High Court. TP Adjustment - AMP expenditure towards selling/marketing distribution expenses incurred by the assessee - whether AMP not an international transaction in absence of an arrangement between the Assessee and AE? - HELD THAT - There is no arrangement between the Assessee and AE for incurring AMP expenses on behalf of the AE and thus the AMP expenses incurred cannot be considered as an international transaction. AMP is part of combined TNMM as per Advance Pricing Agreement ( APA ) - as per DR AMP expenditure is not covered under the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered newly by assessee with CBDT and therefore AMP adjustment made by the TPO being separate international transaction shall sustain - As decided in Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd 2024 (5) TMI 1569 - ITAT CHENNAI all the four pending appeals would fall under the purview of said APA. It is noted that Para- 3 4 5 6 clearly lay down the scheme of working which has to be followed by the assessee while reporting its business affairs. It is also be noted that the assessee has reported its financial transactions in complete fulfilment of the stipulations postulated in the said APA. Accordingly there was no case for any adjustment to be made by the TPO and for the DRP to reiterate TPO s actions. The addition made by the AO is thus in conflict with the agreements done in the APA and consequently deserves to be quashed and set aside. Addition to be deleted. Thus it is appropriate to remit the issue to the file of ld. AO/TPO as the benefit of this order was not available to the AO/TPO at the time of deciding the issue by them.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include:

• Whether the employee stock compensation expense (ESOP) amounting to INR 40,88,471/- is allowable as a revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act or is a capital expenditure disallowable by the Assessing Officer (AO).
• Whether the education cess and secondary higher education cess on income tax are deductible expenses under section 37(1) of the Act (though this ground was not pressed).
• Whether the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments made by the AO and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) relating to:
• Purchase of raw materials and sale of finished goods to Associated Enterprises (AEs) under the manufacturing segment;
• Selling, marketing, and distribution expenses treated as Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenditure;
• Rejection of the appellant's Transfer Pricing study and selection or rejection of comparable companies;
• Application of capacity utilization adjustments and risk profile differences;
• Whether AMP expenses incurred by the appellant constitute an international transaction under section 92B of the Act and whether separate TP adjustments on AMP expenses are warranted;
• Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) and DRP's directions are valid in light of the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered between the appellant and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
• Whether the directions issued by the DRP without quoting mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN) and digital signature are valid (though this ground was not pressed).
• Whether interest under section 234B and penalty under section 271(1)(c) are justified.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Allowability of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) Expense

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act allows deduction of any expenditure (not being capital expenditure) incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The key question was whether ESOP expenses are capital or revenue in nature. The Tribunal relied on the Special Bench ruling in Biocon Ltd vs DCIT, which held that the discount on shares issued under ESOP is a form of employee remuneration and thus revenue expenditure. This was affirmed by the Karnataka High Court and followed in subsequent decisions including Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT and Qlik Tech India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, which recognized that when shares of a foreign parent company are issued to employees of an Indian subsidiary at discount, the difference is a revenue expenditure for the Indian company.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant incurred ESOP expenses by granting Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) to employees, which vest after three years and are exchanged for shares of the foreign parent company. The appellant neither raised share capital nor issued shares from its own capital. The Tribunal found that the ESOP expense was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes as a staff welfare and retention measure.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's submissions, the ESOP plan details, and prior judicial precedents were considered. The AO and DRP had disallowed the expense treating it as capital expenditure, partly relying on a pending Supreme Court matter. The Tribunal rejected this approach and relied on binding precedents.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the ESOP expense is allowable under section 37(1) as revenue expenditure. However, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO to verify compliance with TDS provisions on this expenditure, as failure to deduct TDS may affect allowability.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the ESOP was covered under the APA and thus no separate deduction was warranted. The Tribunal clarified that the APA relates to arm's length pricing and does not preclude claiming deduction under section 37(1).

Conclusion: The ESOP expense is allowable as revenue expenditure subject to TDS verification.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Manufacturing Segment Transactions and Comparables Selection

Legal Framework and Precedents: Transfer Pricing provisions under Chapter X of the Act require international transactions between AEs to be at arm's length price (ALP). The selection of comparables and adjustments for capacity utilization and risk profile are critical for determining ALP.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Although the Tribunal's detailed analysis on this issue is limited in the provided text, it is noted that the appellant challenged the TPO's rejection of their TP study, the denial of capacity utilization adjustments, and the rejection or acceptance of certain comparables. The appellant contended that the TPO erred in rejecting comparables with previous year data and in accepting non-functionally comparable companies.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant relied on the revised TP guidelines and functional analysis. The TPO and DRP relied on their own comparability analysis and rejected the appellant's study.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal did not adjudicate these grounds fully in the present order, as some issues were settled by the APA and others were not pressed.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's contentions on comparables and capacity utilization were countered by the Department's reliance on TPO and DRP findings.

Conclusion: These grounds were either not pressed or settled by APA and thus dismissed accordingly.

3. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on AMP (Advertising, Marketing and Promotion) Expenses

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 92B defines "international transaction" and includes transactions between AEs or transactions where terms are determined by AEs. AMP expenses have been contentious, with judicial precedents clarifying that AMP expenses incurred by an Indian entity for its own business without a specific agreement with AE do not constitute international transactions. The Bright Line Test (BLT) for AMP expenses has been disapproved in several rulings. The APA agreement between the appellant and CBDT excluded AMP expenses from its scope.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal carefully analyzed the appellant's submissions and the intercompany agreements. It was found that the appellant had no specific agreement or arrangement with its AE to incur AMP expenses on their behalf. The distribution agreement required the appellant to use best efforts to promote products but did not mandate sharing or reimbursement of AMP expenses. The TPO and DRP's presumption of an arrangement was found to be unsupported by tangible evidence.

The Tribunal extensively relied on judicial precedents including decisions from the Delhi High Court, Bangalore Tribunal, and Mumbai Tribunal, which held that in absence of a specific agreement or arrangement, AMP expenses incurred by the Indian entity are routine business expenses and not international transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the APA agreement for the relevant years included AMP expenses within operating costs and margins, negating the need for separate AMP adjustment.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant submitted the intercompany agreements, details of AMP expenses, and the APA agreement. The Department relied on TPO and DRP findings, and precedents supporting separate AMP adjustment.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that AMP expenses incurred by the appellant were for its own business and did not constitute international transactions. The separate TP adjustment on AMP expenses was therefore unwarranted. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO/TPO for reconsideration in light of the latest judicial precedents and the APA agreement.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that AMP expenses were not covered under APA and that separate adjustments were justified. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the need for a tangible agreement and the combined TNMM approach under APA.

Conclusion: The AMP TP adjustment was not sustainable; the issue was remitted for fresh consideration consistent with the APA and judicial precedents.

4. Other Grounds

Grounds relating to education cess deduction, DRP directions without DIN and digital signature, interest under section 234B, penalty under section 271(1)(c), and short grant of TDS credit were either not pressed or not adjudicated in detail in this order.

Significant Holdings

On ESOP Expenses:

"The primary object of the aforesaid exercise is not to waste capital but to earn profits by securing consistent services of the employees and therefore, the same cannot be construed as short receipt of capital. The tribunal therefore... has rightly held that incurring of the expenditure by the assessee entitles him for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act subject to fulfillment of the condition."

"The difference between the fair market value of the shares of the parent company and the price at which those shares were issued to its employees in India was paid to the employee and was an employee cost which is a revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of the business of the company and had to be allowed as deduction."

On AMP Expenses and International Transaction:

"In the absence of any international transaction relating to AMP expenses, the impugned TP adjustment cannot be sustained."

"Merely because the AE has a financial interest, it cannot be presumed that AMP expenses incurred by the assessee are at the instance or on behalf of the associated enterprise."

"The initial onus is on the Revenue to demonstrate through some tangible material that the two parties acted in concert and further that there was an agreement to enter into an international transaction concerning AMP expenses."

"Once the Assessing Officer/TPO accepts and adopts TNM Method, but then chooses to treat a particular expenditure like AMP as a separate international transaction without bifurcation/segregation, it would... lead to unusual and incongruous results."

On APA and Combined TNMM Approach:

"The arm's length margin for manufacturing and trading segments as per APA has taken into consideration the AMP expenses while computing operating expense. Thus, no separate adjustment needs to be made with respect to AMP expenses."

Final Determinations

• The ESOP expenses amounting to INR 40,88,471/- are allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, subject to verification of TDS compliance.
• The Transfer Pricing adjustments related to manufacturing segment transactions and comparables were settled by APA or not pressed and thus dismissed accordingly.
• The Transfer Pricing adjustment on AMP expenses is not sustainable in absence of a specific arrangement with AE and is covered within the combined TNMM margin under the APA; the issue is remitted for fresh consideration consistent with judicial precedents and APA terms.
• Other grounds including DRP procedural objections, education cess deduction, interest, and penalty were not pressed or dismissed.