Biocon Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore Special
Bench)
The assessee framed an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) pursuant to which it granted options to its employees to subscribe for shares at the face value of Rs. 10. As the market price of each share was Rs. 919, the assessee claimed that it had given a discount of Rs. 909 which was allowable as a deduction as 'employee compensation. Though the options vested equally over four years, the assessee claimed a larger amount in the first year than was available under the SEBI guidelines. The AO & CIT(A) rejected the claim on the ground that there was no "expenditure". On appeal to the Tribunal, the issue was referred to the Special Bench. HELD by the Special Bench:
(i) The difference (discount) between the market price of the shares and their issue price is "expenditure" in the hands of the assessee because it is a substitute to giving direct incentive in cash for availing the services of the employees. There is no difference between a case where the company issues shares to the public at market price and pays a part of the premium to the employees for their services and another where the shares are directly issued to employees at a reduced rate. In both situations, the employees stand compensated for their effort. By undertaking to issue shares at a discount, the company does not pay anything to its employees but incurs the obligation of issuing shares at a discounted price at a future date. This is nothing but "expenditure" u/s 37(1);
(ii) The liability cannot be regarded as being "contingent" in nature because the rendering of service for one year is sine qua non for becoming eligible to avail the benefit under the scheme. Once the service is rendered for one year, it becomes obligatory on the part of the company to honor its commitment of allowing the vesting of 25% of the option. The liability is incurred at the end of the first year though it is discharged at the end of the fourth year when the options are exercised by the employees. The fact that some options may lapse due to non-exercise/ resignation etc does not make the entire liability contingent;
(iii) However, the obligation to issue shares at a discounted premium does not arise at the stage the options are granted. It arises at the stage that the options are vested in the employees. The amount deductible has to be determined based on the period and percentage of vesting under the ESOP scheme;
(iv) There is likely to be a difference in the quantum of discount at the stage of vesting of the stock options (when the deduction is allowable) and at the stage of exercise of the options. The difference has to be adjusted by making suitable northwards or southwards adjustment at the time of exercise of the option depending on the market price of the shares then prevailing. The fact that the SEBI Guidelines do not provide for the adjustment of discount at the time of exercise of options is irrelevant because accounting principles cannot affect the position under the Income-tax Act.
(v) On facts, the assessee's method of claiming a larger deduction in the first year defies logic. As the options vest equally over a period of four years, the deduction ought to be claimed in four equal installments on a straight line basis (Ranbaxy Laboratories 124 TTJ 771 (Delhi) reversed, S.S.I. Ltd. v. DCIT 85 TTJ 1049 (Chennai) approved, PVP Ventures 211 Taxman 554 referred. See also Spray Engineering Devices Ltd 53 SOT 70 (Chd)
The assessee framed an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) pursuant to which it granted options to its employees to subscribe for shares at the face value of Rs. 10. As the market price of each share was Rs. 919, the assessee claimed that it had given a discount of Rs. 909 which was allowable as a deduction as 'employee compensation. Though the options vested equally over four years, the assessee claimed a larger amount in the first year than was available under the SEBI guidelines. The AO & CIT(A) rejected the claim on the ground that there was no "expenditure". On appeal to the Tribunal, the issue was referred to the Special Bench. HELD by the Special Bench:
(i) The difference (discount) between the market price of the shares and their issue price is "expenditure" in the hands of the assessee because it is a substitute to giving direct incentive in cash for availing the services of the employees. There is no difference between a case where the company issues shares to the public at market price and pays a part of the premium to the employees for their services and another where the shares are directly issued to employees at a reduced rate. In both situations, the employees stand compensated for their effort. By undertaking to issue shares at a discount, the company does not pay anything to its employees but incurs the obligation of issuing shares at a discounted price at a future date. This is nothing but "expenditure" u/s 37(1);
(ii) The liability cannot be regarded as being "contingent" in nature because the rendering of service for one year is sine qua non for becoming eligible to avail the benefit under the scheme. Once the service is rendered for one year, it becomes obligatory on the part of the company to honor its commitment of allowing the vesting of 25% of the option. The liability is incurred at the end of the first year though it is discharged at the end of the fourth year when the options are exercised by the employees. The fact that some options may lapse due to non-exercise/ resignation etc does not make the entire liability contingent;
(iii) However, the obligation to issue shares at a discounted premium does not arise at the stage the options are granted. It arises at the stage that the options are vested in the employees. The amount deductible has to be determined based on the period and percentage of vesting under the ESOP scheme;
(iv) There is likely to be a difference in the quantum of discount at the stage of vesting of the stock options (when the deduction is allowable) and at the stage of exercise of the options. The difference has to be adjusted by making suitable northwards or southwards adjustment at the time of exercise of the option depending on the market price of the shares then prevailing. The fact that the SEBI Guidelines do not provide for the adjustment of discount at the time of exercise of options is irrelevant because accounting principles cannot affect the position under the Income-tax Act.
(v) On facts, the assessee's method of claiming a larger deduction in the first year defies logic. As the options vest equally over a period of four years, the deduction ought to be claimed in four equal installments on a straight line basis (Ranbaxy Laboratories 124 TTJ 771 (Delhi) reversed, S.S.I. Ltd. v. DCIT 85 TTJ 1049 (Chennai) approved, PVP Ventures 211 Taxman 554 referred. See also Spray Engineering Devices Ltd 53 SOT 70 (Chd)
No comments:
Post a Comment